RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,915
Posts: 5,331,252
Members: 24,560
Currently online: 527
Newest member: jakesmit44543

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27 2012, 08:04 PM   #1
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Earth's Role

Damon Lindelof had this to say about Earth's role in the next movie "Star Trek Into Darkness".

Damon Lindelof wrote:
I don't want to get into percentages of how much takes place on Earth and how much takes place off Earth, suffice to say I think one of the things we felt a lot of people didn't know about Star Trek was that they didn't think that Star Trek was the future. You take something like Star Wars; Star Wars is not the future. It's a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and Luke Skywalker is not a human being and isn't from the planet Earth. The idea in Star Trek, they are. They're in the 23rd century and these people are from Earth. The Earth needed to play more of a role in these movies, especially in the sense of giving the audience a degree of relatability. I think that in the same way that New York City becomes this anchor point for people in the Marvel movies; that's Spidey's stomping ground, that was the stomping ground for Tony Stark, that was the stomping ground for The Avengers, it's New York. We wanted to do the same thing with Earth in the Star Trek movies.
Now I know a lot of fans out there still feel that that Star Trek is about humanity, with Gene Roddenberry himself saying that "Earth is a paradise" when explaining how humans should act (No sad feelings over a parents death). It's no surprise that Earth has played a part in Star Trek to help explore those 'perfect' traits of our characters when they're acting besides their 'infantile' selves.

However, I have some pretty strong issues with the notion of making Earth play a much larger role in this new take of Star Trek. Bear in mind that these points simply reflect my opinion on what I think Star Trek is about and isn't meant to dissuade other fans' viewpoints.
  1. Earth doesn't make Star Trek unique. Despite bringing up Star Wars, there aren't all that many science fiction franchises that don't have an Earth, let alone stories that don't follow a human protagonist. The idea of giving Earth a more centralized role I feel does more to hinder Star Trek's identity, since a lot of science fiction works have an Earth. Just compare how many science fiction works have an Earth, and how many have a planet Vulcan. Sadly, Star Trek doesn't have a Vulcan anymore.
  2. It's a cheap gimmick. For a franchise that has spanned so much territory in regards to how much the federation has explored, there sure seems to be a lot of focus on that one tiny blue planet. That's where the gimmick part comes in because putting Earth in danger will get audiences rallied up because, hey, we all live on Earth! Damon's reasons seem to stems more from this fact than anything else in just trying to get more audiences into the seats. Imagine for instance if the Earth was destroyed instead of Vulcan. The writers would actually have to work in coming up with ways to get audiences excited about Star Trek! Impossible? Well, how many original series episodes dealt with a destructive force that wanted to destroy just the Earth in the entire series? Here's a clue. The crew never even went to their modern day Earth.
  3. It makes Star Trek more human focused than it should. This is where my idea of what Star Trek is about clashes with a lot of "it's about humanity!" ideas. For me, Star Trek is about a massive, diverse and ever changing galaxy and how everyone fits into it. That includes humans to, and also Klingons, Romulans ect. When you look at some of the characters from TNG or even Deep Space Nine as a whole, Star Trek has given several alien cultures a huge chunk of non-human based stories. This is one of the crucial parts that separates Star Trek from any other science fiction franchise because it was willing to give the aliens and sometimes ONLY the aliens their own story that played out in a big way. However with JJ's Trek, aliens have gotten their roles reduced dramatically since the original series had all it's main character be human to a degree, and now with Earth's bigger role, there may never be a huge part for any alien based story for quite some time, and that's unfortunate.
  4. It's been done already. Star Trek Into Darkness is the third consecutive Star Trek movie that features a bad guy who wants to attack Earth out of vengeance. I would just like to see the writers come up with a storyline that can be exciting that doesn't involve Earth. But with Lindelof's comments about making Earth more prominent in 'their' movies, I don't think Star Trek is going to leave it's comfort zone anytime soon.

So that's my view on Earth in Star Trek. I just find the planet boring and uninteresting. I'd like to see the Enterprise to be the crew's home, not that over used blue blob of grease.

One other thing. Iron Man's stomping ground is California.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 08:39 PM   #2
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Earth's Role

Wheras I can't wait to see future-Earth in all it's glory for the first time. We've seen a few sleepy San Francisco streets in DS9, we've seen Starfleet HQ and the academy again and again, but never a busy 23rd-century metropolis. I want to explore the world that launched the USS Enterprise!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 08:48 PM   #3
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Earth's Role

Hmmm. I don't like the idea of Star Trek being "anchored" on Earth at all. Reminds me of how 2005-2010 Doctor Who would always have everything focus on modern day London .

It makes things more accessible and relatable.... but also a lot less interesting. I love the Star Trek mythology as a means of escaping from Earth, a reminder of my real life. The less we see of it the better.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 08:52 PM   #4
Robert Maxwell
Respect the Beef
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Right behind you!
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Earth's Role

Jeyl wrote: View Post
Damon Lindelof had this to say about Earth's role in the next movie "Star Trek Into Darkness".

Damon Lindelof wrote:
I don't want to get into percentages of how much takes place on Earth and how much takes place off Earth, suffice to say I think one of the things we felt a lot of people didn't know about Star Trek was that they didn't think that Star Trek was the future. You take something like Star Wars; Star Wars is not the future. It's a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and Luke Skywalker is not a human being and isn't from the planet Earth. The idea in Star Trek, they are. They're in the 23rd century and these people are from Earth. The Earth needed to play more of a role in these movies, especially in the sense of giving the audience a degree of relatability. I think that in the same way that New York City becomes this anchor point for people in the Marvel movies; that's Spidey's stomping ground, that was the stomping ground for Tony Stark, that was the stomping ground for The Avengers, it's New York. We wanted to do the same thing with Earth in the Star Trek movies.
Now I know a lot of fans out there still feel that that Star Trek is about humanity, with Gene Roddenberry himself saying that "Earth is a paradise" when explaining how humans should act (No sad feelings over a parents death). It's no surprise that Earth has played a part in Star Trek to help explore those 'perfect' traits of our characters when they're acting besides their 'infantile' selves.

However, I have some pretty strong issues with the notion of making Earth play a much larger role in this new take of Star Trek. Bear in mind that these points simply reflect my opinion on what I think Star Trek is about and isn't meant to dissuade other fans' viewpoints.
  1. Earth doesn't make Star Trek unique. Despite bringing up Star Wars, there aren't all that many science fiction franchises that don't have an Earth, let alone stories that don't follow a human protagonist. The idea of giving Earth a more centralized role I feel does more to hinder Star Trek's identity, since a lot of science fiction works have an Earth. Just compare how many science fiction works have an Earth, and how many have a planet Vulcan. Sadly, Star Trek doesn't have a Vulcan anymore.
  2. It's a cheap gimmick. For a franchise that has spanned so much territory in regards to how much the federation has explored, there sure seems to be a lot of focus on that one tiny blue planet. That's where the gimmick part comes in because putting Earth in danger will get audiences rallied up because, hey, we all live on Earth! Damon's reasons seem to stems more from this fact than anything else in just trying to get more audiences into the seats. Imagine for instance if the Earth was destroyed instead of Vulcan. The writers would actually have to work in coming up with ways to get audiences excited about Star Trek! Impossible? Well, how many original series episodes dealt with a destructive force that wanted to destroy just the Earth in the entire series? Here's a clue. The crew never even went to their modern day Earth.
  3. It makes Star Trek more human focused than it should. This is where my idea of what Star Trek is about clashes with a lot of "it's about humanity!" ideas. For me, Star Trek is about a massive, diverse and ever changing galaxy and how everyone fits into it. That includes humans to, and also Klingons, Romulans ect. When you look at some of the characters from TNG or even Deep Space Nine as a whole, Star Trek has given several alien cultures a huge chunk of non-human based stories. This is one of the crucial parts that separates Star Trek from any other science fiction franchise because it was willing to give the aliens and sometimes ONLY the aliens their own story that played out in a big way. However with JJ's Trek, aliens have gotten their roles reduced dramatically since the original series had all it's main character be human to a degree, and now with Earth's bigger role, there may never be a huge part for any alien based story for quite some time, and that's unfortunate.
  4. It's been done already. Star Trek Into Darkness is the third consecutive Star Trek movie that features a bad guy who wants to attack Earth out of vengeance. I would just like to see the writers come up with a storyline that can be exciting that doesn't involve Earth. But with Lindelof's comments about making Earth more prominent in 'their' movies, I don't think Star Trek is going to leave it's comfort zone anytime soon.

So that's my view on Earth in Star Trek. I just find the planet boring and uninteresting. I'd like to see the Enterprise to be the crew's home, not that over used blue blob of grease.

One other thing. Iron Man's stomping ground is California.
I'm thinking Star Trek Into Darkness may not be the film for you, then. I wish you well.
__________________
"Holy shit! It's Beef Supreme!"
The Journeyman - Buy it now! Maybe?
My world simulation project!
My blog
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 08:56 PM   #5
Talosian
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Earth's Role

Yeah, this is my least favorite aspect of new Star Trek. It's only been one film so far and hints about the next, but this quote seems to cement the geocentric nature of this version of the Federation and Starfleet.

In a way, the destruction of Vulcan in this timeline helped ensure that Earth would play a bigger role.

I haven't seen the 9 minute preview, but I'm curious to see if there's more of the vibe of exploration only given in the very end of the last film, when Nimoy came on to intone: "to boldly go where no one has gone before."
Talosian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 09:10 PM   #6
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Earth's Role

It's anything but a "cheap gimmick" and Star Trek TOS was virtually always "human focused" - we saw, at most, a couple of aliens serving in Starfleet during the entire run of the series, and not even that many human beings who were directly identified as having been born anywhere other than Earth.

Vulcan was talked about in TOS, but how many Vulcans did we meet? How many were important in Starfleet or the Federation?

For all the hindsight fans like to bring to this, aliens were "the other guys" in TOS, not Starfleet or the Federation.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 09:23 PM   #7
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Earth's Role

I'd just like a movie about a crew of space explorers to take place away from Earth. Maybe my demands are too out there?
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 09:42 PM   #8
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Earth's Role

We already know for a fact that action in STID takes place in 2 planets besides Earth. Nibiru and Qo'nos.
That's 3 planets visited and there might be others we don't know about yet.

How many more do you folks want them to visit in a 2 hour movie?
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 09:55 PM   #9
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Earth's Role

The very first moments of the film concern the crew of the Enterprise on a distant world, performing the kind of mission that we saw on the original show. It's as if the complainers in the this thread are being willfully blind.

But that's crazy, right?
__________________
Some say that he was the first choice to play the new Doctor but turned it down when he couldn't put racing stripes on the TARDIS.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:03 PM   #10
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Earth's Role

Uh, OK but when we've got the screenwriter saying he wants to make Earth the anchor of nu-Trek and we have a trailer with zero space shots you can at least understand why we're concerned?
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:06 PM   #11
Robert Maxwell
Respect the Beef
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Right behind you!
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Earth's Role

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Uh, OK but when we've got the screenwriter saying he wants to make Earth the anchor of nu-Trek and we have a trailer with zero space shots you can at least understand why we're concerned?
Showing "concern" over a film that's not even been released yet does not strike me as understandable or sensible, no, and especially not when the person expressing that concern has no financial stake in the film's success (I assume.)
__________________
"Holy shit! It's Beef Supreme!"
The Journeyman - Buy it now! Maybe?
My world simulation project!
My blog
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:09 PM   #12
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Earth's Role

DalekJim wrote: View Post
and we have a trailer with zero space shots you can at least relate to why we're concerned?
No I can't.
We are still 5 months from the premiere. That means post production is still happening and the end is months away.
That also means the majority of special effects, including whatever space shots there are will, in all likelihood, not be ready for some time yet.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:12 PM   #13
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Earth's Role

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Showing "concern" over a film that's not even been released yet does not strike me as understandable or sensible, no.
Why would I show concern about possibly not enjoying a film I've already seen?

SalvorHardin wrote:
That also means that the majority of special effects including whatever space shots there are will, in all likelihood, not be ready for some time yet.

Hell, maybe you're right. Maybe all this Earth Trek II: Wrath of Cumberbatch nonsense is a smoke-screen and we'll get an ideas driven film set in lush sci-fi landscapes.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:13 PM   #14
Robert Maxwell
Respect the Beef
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Right behind you!
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Earth's Role

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Showing "concern" over a film that's not even been released yet does not strike me as understandable or sensible, no.
Why would I show concern about pssibly not enjoying a film I've already seen?
Could you try restating that question in a way that makes sense?
__________________
"Holy shit! It's Beef Supreme!"
The Journeyman - Buy it now! Maybe?
My world simulation project!
My blog
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2012, 10:14 PM   #15
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: Earth's Role

There were brief space shots in the second trailer...jeez. SalvorHardin is right about the post production aspect. We'll probably see some more space shots in the third trailer in a few months.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 AM.

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