RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,219
Posts: 5,405,176
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 496
Newest member: jeb1138

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 May 26 2013, 02:05 PM   #1
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:10 PM   #2
EnsignRicky
Commodore
 
EnsignRicky's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere Far Beyond
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

Because all of the other cities were destroyed by the damned dirty apes.
__________________
Use Only As Directed
EnsignRicky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:13 PM   #3
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: At the After Party Still...
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
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
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:24 PM   #4
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

EnsignRicky wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:29 PM   #5
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
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.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:44 PM   #6
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

MacLeod wrote: View Post
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?
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 02:55 PM   #7
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

EnsignRicky wrote: View Post
Because all of the other cities were destroyed by the damned dirty apes.
Will Khan bring Charlton Heston back?
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 03:13 PM   #8
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 04:38 PM   #9
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
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 ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 04:53 PM   #10
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

Belz... wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 05:00 PM   #11
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

Who doesn't want to see California destroyed over and over again?
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 06:52 PM   #12
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
...
Unless it's any film directed by Roland Emmerich, in which case it's a universal constant that New York City will get it.
**finger pauses over button, twitches once, then moves on**
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 06:59 PM   #13
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Who doesn't want to see California destroyed over and over again?
Californians?
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 07:26 PM   #14
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 07:30 PM   #15
Kestra
Vice Admiral
 
Kestra's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
"You're not my type." --Manticore
Kestra 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 04:18 AM.

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