Earth's Role

[Carcazoid]

Jingle Balrog wrote:

---

Gene Roddenberry was a visionary for creating Star Trek, but he had an... "interesting" preoccupation with sex from all reports.

Yeah, Gene was a horndog.

SonicRanger wrote:

---

But the first thing Roddenberry did with a movie budget is redesign the Enterprise and show Earth... and he wanted Earth to have naked people who are telepathically linked and wild animals as pets.

He must not have wanted the naked telepathic zookeeper thing too badly, because it was pretty much never mentioned again.

I think Angel One was as close as he ever got, and we all know how well that turned out.

[The Wormhole]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

Yeah, Gene was a horndog.

He must not have wanted the naked telepathic zookeeper thing too badly, because it was pretty much never mentioned again.

I think Angel One was as close as he ever got, and we all know how well that turned out.

Actually, I think you're thinking of Justice, the one with the half-naked folks who decide to execute Wesley for some reason. Angel One was the woman dominated society which featured men wearing perfume.

[Carcazoid]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Actually, I think you're thinking of Justice, the one with the half-naked folks who decide to execute Wesley for some reason. Angel One was the woman dominated society which featured men wearing perfume.

I think you're right. Maybe if you put the two episodes together you'd get one good one. Or not.

[The Keeper]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

Yeah, Gene was a horndog.

He must not have wanted the naked telepathic zookeeper thing too badly, because it was pretty much never mentioned again.

I think Angel One was as close as he ever got, and we all know how well that turned out.

[EM] More likely saner minds intervened, talked him down from his madness.

On a different note, I saw screen-caps from the 9 minutes preview which feature an idyllic park setting, (thankfully) sans the naked people but hey, it is tribute to Roddenberry's vision though.

[Kruezerman]

I'm a liberal myself and I consider the Federation to be socially liberal but please, no nudity and no hippies. Please.

[Nerys Myk]

And especially no nude hippies.

[robau]

Why not? Everyone in the Utopia is hot anyway.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Which is strange, considering the Federation's ban on genetic engineering.

[Nerys Myk]

robau wrote:

---

Why not? Everyone in the Utopia is hot anyway.

Must be a different Utopia than the one seen in TOS.

[UFO]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

I'm a liberal myself and I consider the Federation to be socially liberal but please, no nudity and no hippies. Please.

Just another armchair liberal.

[Kruezerman]

UFO wrote:

---

Just another armchair liberal.

Or DINO (Democrat in Name Only).

[T'Girl]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

... please, no nudity and no hippies. Please.

Unless the naked hippie is a chubby blonde, playing a bicycle wheel.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

gottacook wrote:

---

Five such movies are already too many.

Nope. New one looks good.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

gottacook wrote:

---

The Making of Star Trek (1968) includes memos that discuss why the series would never return to Earth of the present. Good reasons, as I recall. One of the selling points of TMP was that fans would finally get to see Earth, or at least Star Fleet headquarters. But that movie made it easier for later movies (in 1986, 1996, 2002, and 2009) to return to the Earth-under-threat scenario. Five such movies are already too many.

But we still never really saw the common everyday Earth in those films. We've only seen the administeriel side of Earth. That would be like only seeing today's United Nations or today's White House and U.S. Capitol, and saying "this is today's Earth".

Granted, we have caught some glimpses of "common everyday Earth" -- a New Orleans restaurant in DS9, even a French vineyard in TNG -- but those were not enough to get a feel for how 24th century people live.

I want to see (at least some glimpses of) 23rd or 24th century people going about their day. We have scant examples of that in Star Trek. Most Earth scenes are sanitized and sterilized visions of Earth, and don't feel the least bit like they are "the real future Earth".

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

But we still never really saw the common everyday Earth in those films. We've only seen the administeriel side of Earth. That would be like only seeing today's United Nations or today's White House and U.S. Capitol, and saying "this is today's Earth".

Granted, we have caught some glimpses of "common everyday Earth" -- a New Orleans restaurant in DS9, even a French vineyard in TNG -- but those were not enough to get a feel for how 24th century people live.

I want to see (at least some glimpses of) 23rd or 24th century people going about their day. We have scant examples of that in Star Trek. Most Earth scenes are sanitized and sterilized visions of Earth, and don't feel the least bit like they are "the real future Earth".

As I remember, the major reasons given in "The Making of Star Trek" for not showing Earth were the necessity for complex sets (which meant money and time) and to avoid potential arguments (especially in the network and among sponsors) about how the social and political system of the Earth finally panned out.
If they had wanted or needed to in TOS, I'm sure they could've made a shrewd guess at what a 23rd century San Francisco, New York, or Chicago, or even a countryside could look like and what the political and social structure would (could) be.

I agree with Roykirk that it would be nice to see a more "everyday" earth, and I think we'll get a small dose through Clarke's character in this movie, but a bigger on-screen picture would probably have to wait for a TV series (if there will ever be one).