Earth's Role

[DalekJim]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Could you try restating that question in a way that makes sense?

You said it makes no sense for me to show concern over a film's content when I haven't seen it. This baffled me as if I had seen it then why would I worry about what was in the film?

[EnsignRicky]

Sheesh. So this guy is saying they're going to have lots of Earth in it, because every recent Hollywood blockbuster (by name) has had lots of Earth in them. Coming from a movie that demands two writers, (who apparently can't accomplish much individually), it kinda actually makes a whole lot of sense.

And I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about with people not knowing Star Trek takes place in the future. if there's any confusion, it more than likely arose out of their own Old Spock, Nu Spock, red matter, exploding Vulcan, time travel, dead parents, lens flare, fan-fist of '09.

[Carcazoid]

Earth is the home of Starfleet Command and the Federation Council. There's no way that Earth could not be an important part of the story.

TOS episodes were conceived as, if not written as, a metaphor for the human condition. Regardless of storylines and characters, to change that now would be to abandon entirely GR's vision.

I can't spend a lot of time writing responses to these threads but I've seen a bunch of "fans" over my 40 year history with Trek that don't seem to get it.

[DalekJim]

EnsignRicky wrote:

---

And I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about with people not knowing Star Trek takes place in the future.

I find it hilarious that this film's target audience is the type of person that wouldn't be able to tell that Star Trek is set in the future .

[Robert Maxwell]

DalekJim wrote:

---

You said it makes no sense for me to show concern over a film's content when I haven't seen it. This baffled me as if I had seen it then why would I worry about what was in the film?

You are implying there is an appropriate time to be "concerned" about a film you have no financial stake in.

There isn't.

Whether or not you will see it is a binary decision. Either you will, or you won't. See it if you think you will enjoy it. If you see it and don't enjoy it, skip the next one, if that suits you. Or don't. What's it to me?

[DalekJim]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

You are implying there is an appropriate time to be "concerned" about a film you have no financial stake in.

There isn't.

Star Trek is an important part of my life so I want to enjoy the only piece of official live-action Trek going. I'll show concern if it looks like I won't.

I don't get why my motivations appear so alien in nature?

It isn't necessary I post that making a show called Star Trek more earthbound is a dumb, cynical idea. It also isn't necessary that you reply. Or for any of us to be here talking on this very forum. But we still do cus it's fun .

[Locutus of Bored]

Talosian wrote:

---

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 what way is this unique to "new Trek"? Every single Trek movie with the exception of Insurrection had an Enterprise and/or her crew on Earth. Every single Trek movie except Insurrection and TSfS had a villain or threat who either had its origins on Earth, visited Earth, or threatened Earth.

The movies have always featured Earth, because they're trying to make the threat destination or origin, the crew location, or the setting relatable to the audience, which in the case of the films needs to go well beyond just preexisting fans in order to be viable and profitable.

At least in ST09 we got a focus on two other planets (Vulcan and Delta Vega) and in STID we get at least two more (Nibiru and Q'o'nos, with the Enterprise crew beginning their part in the film on Nibiru). It just seems odd to single out the new movies as exceptional in their use of Earth compared to the older movies, which used it just as often if not more so.

[Robert Maxwell]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Star Trek is an important part of my life so I want to enjoy the only piece of official live-action Trek going. I'll show concern if it looks like I won't.

I don't get why my motivations appear so alien in nature?

It's entertainment. It's supposed to entertain you. If it is instead upsetting you, it might be best to avoid it. It's not something like politics or the economy where it continues to affect you whether you pay attention or not. I ignore the bits of popular culture I don't like or have no interest in. It's easy.

[DalekJim]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

It's entertainment. It's supposed to entertain you. If it is instead upsetting you, it might be best to avoid it. It's not something like politics or the economy where it continues to affect you whether you pay attention or not. I ignore the bits of popular culture I don't like or have no interest in. It's easy.

Couldn't I also put to you that if you don't like my posts then you don't have to read them?

[Robert Maxwell]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Couldn't I also put to you that if you don't like my posts then you don't have to read them?

Of course. But then, responding to them is entertaining, so it works out.

[ROBE]

Well it looks like the Enterprise starts the movie on another planet, then returns to Earth before visiting another planet.

[Locutus of Bored]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I find it hilarious that this film's target audience is the type of person that wouldn't be able to tell that Star Trek is set in the future .

Before you start looking down on the audience as intellectually deficient again (because that worked out so well for you in the other thread where you got owned) while missing the entire point of the quote, it should be noted that Lindelof was not saying that people can't recognize that the elements of the film are futuristic in nature (just as they are in Star Wars despite the ancient past setting), he's saying that more emphasis needs to be put on the fact that this represents our Earth and our Human future, as opposed to generic humans from a galaxy far far away or the Twelve Colonies of Kobol in SW and BSG. Hence using the touchstones of recognizable and relatable Earth cities as key settings and plot points in the film.

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Lindelof's writing at times and I feel most people --even casual viewers who aren't regular fans-- can grasp that the crew of the Enterprise are from Earth's future, even if they only vaguely know about TOS or TNG, but if you're going to start complaining about his point, at least get what he's talking about right first. Especially if you're going to try and wedge it into an argument about how audiences are too dumb to grasp the concept of the film.

[DalekJim]

I... disagree with him then (And believe it or not I actually like Lindelof!). I think if audiences see a sci-fi setting with spaceships and everything then they always assume it's set in our future. I guarantee most casuals all assume Star Wars is set in our future, despite the "A long time ago.." tagline.

I also think there are subtler ways of showing this is set in our future than just anchoring Trek to Earth. Can't we just have characters... reference Earth? Quote Shakespeare or whatever? It just seems pretty pointless to me.

[The Stig]

DalekJim wrote:

---

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?

So, the exterior of the Enterprise getting shot to hell didn't occur in space?

You're 'concerned' because you've already formed an opinion about that movie and feel the need to bitch about said opinion, not because of anything that's actually been released.

[The Wormhole]

Honestly, we are long overdue for an in-depth look at Earth of the future in Star Trek. Yeah, Star Trek is about exploring space, meeting aliens, boldly going and all that jazz, but in nearly 50 years the most in-depth look at contemporary Earth we've gotten in on-screen Trek is the Homefront/Paradise Lost two-parter on DS9. And the only thing that makes that in-depth is seeing a restaurant in New Orleans. Earth is the most important planet in Trek. Humanity's homeworld, the capital of the Federation, and yet we know next to nothing about what it's like in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

I sure don't mind if a good deal of STID is Earth based. One Earth-focused movie in a 46 year-old space franchise isn't going to hurt at all.