Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube fan.
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
The gentleman is Absolutely Right™.
TGT
The gentleman is Absolutely Right™.
TGT
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
This guy is an idiot. The bridge in the trailer is the Golden Gate, not the Bay Bridge. And this movie is in the 22nd century, not the 24th. And what sci-fi movie worth anything shows a future version of a city...exactly as it looks in the present?
Moron.
This guy is an idiot. The bridge in the trailer is the Golden Gate, not the Bay Bridge. And this movie is in the 22nd century, not the 24th. And what sci-fi movie worth anything shows a future version of a city...exactly as it looks in the present?
Moron.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Speculating on the future of architecture and urban design and their impact on social interactions is a perfectly legitimate element of hard science fiction ranging from Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars and Robert Silverberg's The World Inside to Mack Reynolds' The Towers of Utopia and Niven/Pournelle's Oath of Fealty. There were also a couple of anthologies published, such as Damon Knight's Cities of Wonder and Roger Elwood's Future City. As for Trek, Gene Roddenberry had some very specific ideas about how he wanted 23rd century Earth to be presented and J.J. Abrams' "vision" of 23rd century San Francisco is about as far from that as one can get.
TGT
Yep, that does it. We now have run out of things to officially bitch about. Now it's on to zoning regulations in a 23rd Century Scifi film. Wow.
Speculating on the future of architecture and urban design and their impact on social interactions is a perfectly legitimate element of hard science fiction ranging from Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars and Robert Silverberg's The World Inside to Mack Reynolds' The Towers of Utopia and Niven/Pournelle's Oath of Fealty. There were also a couple of anthologies published, such as Damon Knight's Cities of Wonder and Roger Elwood's Future City. As for Trek, Gene Roddenberry had some very specific ideas about how he wanted 23rd century Earth to be presented and J.J. Abrams' "vision" of 23rd century San Francisco is about as far from that as one can get.
TGT
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
I personally don't mind the tall buildings, but I'm not sure about the Coruscant-looking architecture. And it is a little weird that in the 23. century North America still has pollution issues (I'm used to seeing SF depicted as 'heaven on earth' in Trek).
I personally don't mind the tall buildings, but I'm not sure about the Coruscant-looking architecture. And it is a little weird that in the 23. century North America still has pollution issues (I'm used to seeing SF depicted as 'heaven on earth' in Trek).
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
My Impression was that Rodenberry was somewhat of an anti-urbanist. Up till now, with regard to earth, we never got to see any of these uber-hightech metropolis skyscraper jungles so popular across much of modern science fiction and other futurist representations of our planet. When they conveyed that earth was like a paradise in Star Trek, I always took this fairly literally, in that humanity had returned as much land as possible to nature, in an effort for maximum conservation of our biosphere. After all, in Star Trek society has moved beyond the need to exploit the earth for agriculture and resources, as almost everything can be created through matter energy conversion. Also I believe human population density is fairly stable in the trekkian future and that earth is not over populated (hardly a vision of paradise otherwise). Furthermore, modern transportation takes away the need to live even close to cities. Thus there is no drive for extreme urban development.
Yep, that does it. We now have run out of things to officially bitch about. Now it's on to zoning regulations in a 23rd Century Scifi film. Wow.
Speculating on the future of architecture and urban design and their impact on social interactions is a perfectly legitimate element of hard science fiction ranging from Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars and Robert Silverberg's The World Inside to Mack Reynolds' The Towers of Utopia and Niven/Pournelle's Oath of Fealty. There were also a couple of anthologies published, such as Damon Knight's Cities of Wonder and Roger Elwood's Future City. As for Trek, Gene Roddenberry had some very specific ideas about how he wanted 23rd century Earth to be presented and J.J. Abrams' "vision" of 23rd century San Francisco is about as far from that as one can get.
TGT
My Impression was that Rodenberry was somewhat of an anti-urbanist. Up till now, with regard to earth, we never got to see any of these uber-hightech metropolis skyscraper jungles so popular across much of modern science fiction and other futurist representations of our planet. When they conveyed that earth was like a paradise in Star Trek, I always took this fairly literally, in that humanity had returned as much land as possible to nature, in an effort for maximum conservation of our biosphere. After all, in Star Trek society has moved beyond the need to exploit the earth for agriculture and resources, as almost everything can be created through matter energy conversion. Also I believe human population density is fairly stable in the trekkian future and that earth is not over populated (hardly a vision of paradise otherwise). Furthermore, modern transportation takes away the need to live even close to cities. Thus there is no drive for extreme urban development.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
I don't have the slightest problem with sprawling cities drenched in multi-kilometer high skyscrapers as long as they are built in aesthetically unremarkable regions (i.e., anywhere east of the Rockies). OTOH, the San Francisco Bay Area - in particular San Francisco, Marin, Contra Costa and Alameda counties - requires substantially more draconian zoning laws to protect what little is left of its unique natural scenery and topography.
That crap is probably supposed to represent fog, but don't quote me on it.
"If we have the opportunity to see Earth, we will discover that it has been largely returned to its natural state. Lush forests and barren deserts are preserved in pollution-free purity. Industry, commerce and transportation facilities are predominately underground so that the surface of the planet can be a place to be enjoyed." - Extracted from the 1977 production memo 23rd century Earth: Context for Enterprise Crew by Jon Povill (Phase II Script Editor/ST:TMP Associate Producer).
TGT
I don't have the slightest problem with sprawling cities drenched in multi-kilometer high skyscrapers as long as they are built in aesthetically unremarkable regions (i.e., anywhere east of the Rockies). OTOH, the San Francisco Bay Area - in particular San Francisco, Marin, Contra Costa and Alameda counties - requires substantially more draconian zoning laws to protect what little is left of its unique natural scenery and topography.
That crap is probably supposed to represent fog, but don't quote me on it.
"If we have the opportunity to see Earth, we will discover that it has been largely returned to its natural state. Lush forests and barren deserts are preserved in pollution-free purity. Industry, commerce and transportation facilities are predominately underground so that the surface of the planet can be a place to be enjoyed." - Extracted from the 1977 production memo 23rd century Earth: Context for Enterprise Crew by Jon Povill (Phase II Script Editor/ST:TMP Associate Producer).
TGT
Last edited:
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Is that supposed to be smog? I was under the impression it was just misty, or something.
Is that supposed to be smog? I was under the impression it was just misty, or something.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
And that's the way it should be. After all Star Trek's philosophy is first and foremost humanist and holistic. Humans strive to better themselves and although they could make tremendous bounds by implanting themselves with technology and engineering their genome they choose not to. In fact, they outlawed such manipulations of the human species. It makes only sense that they would want to sustain nature, their home planet and the universe in a similar way. I always felt that there has been a healthy dose of technology criticism in Star Trek. This has been emphasized on multiple levels not just the plots of the show but the design and art production, e.g. in the depiction of earth and other Federation planets.
When I saw the recent trailer of the new movie, which I liked, I was disappointed with the shot of San Francisco bay. With the memo you have quoted above it makes me wonder even more, if Abram's repeated claim of understanding Star Trek's core values is anything more than a sound bite.
And that's the way it should be. After all Star Trek's philosophy is first and foremost humanist and holistic. Humans strive to better themselves and although they could make tremendous bounds by implanting themselves with technology and engineering their genome they choose not to. In fact, they outlawed such manipulations of the human species. It makes only sense that they would want to sustain nature, their home planet and the universe in a similar way. I always felt that there has been a healthy dose of technology criticism in Star Trek. This has been emphasized on multiple levels not just the plots of the show but the design and art production, e.g. in the depiction of earth and other Federation planets.
When I saw the recent trailer of the new movie, which I liked, I was disappointed with the shot of San Francisco bay. With the memo you have quoted above it makes me wonder even more, if Abram's repeated claim of understanding Star Trek's core values is anything more than a sound bite.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Pfft. That padd is obviously from DS9 and not from the original series era so your attempt at making a mockery of this has backfired for I am now making a mockery out of you.
Ha ha! Ha ha ha.
Pfft. That padd is obviously from DS9 and not from the original series era so your attempt at making a mockery of this has backfired for I am now making a mockery out of you.
Ha ha! Ha ha ha.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Considering the HUGE buildings in Iowa, the San Francisco skyline is shrimpy.
Are any Iowans complaining that there aren't 10-mile-tall buildings in Iowa today so there shouldn't be in three hundred years?
Considering the HUGE buildings in Iowa, the San Francisco skyline is shrimpy.
Are any Iowans complaining that there aren't 10-mile-tall buildings in Iowa today so there shouldn't be in three hundred years?
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Dammit! You're too clever for me....Pfft. That padd is obviously from DS9 and not from the original series era so your attempt at making a mockery of this has backfired for I am now making a mockery out of you.
Ha ha! Ha ha ha.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
...of DOOOM?
Pfft. That padd is obviously from DS9 and not from the original series era so your attempt at making a mockery of this has backfired for I am now making a mockery out of you.
Ha ha! Ha ha ha.
...of DOOOM?
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Frankly, I think if you're going for an epic feel, then the details that contribute to that look have to be satisfying. And, I guess I'm not satisfied in this case.
The thing too, is density. What kind of quality of life does one have in a city that is that densely packed with buildings and (one would presume) people? What would it be like to walk amongst those buildings? It may look kewl, but people gotta live there.
I think TGT is spot-on with his critique in this thread.
To me, this San Francisco looks more like Tim Burton's Gotham City in Batman. Or a city on the Klingon home world. Totally uninviting and overwrought. I don't like the vision. I don't like that the other shot of SF from the Academy out towards the Golden Gate shows the area is apparently built up with uber-tall buildings right down to Cliff House.
I didn't like the idea of those huge self-contained structures out in Iowa, either. So sue me.
It's not going to ruin the movie for me. But it's a disappointing look nonetheless. I wish there were tighter zoning laws in the future.
I suppose one could say that a person from 1890 Chicago or New York would probably feel overwhelmed and wouldn't recognize much in either city, today. The person probably wouldn't like it, either. And true, cities are dynamic. They change. Sometimes radically. And sometimes not for the better. So, it's the execution of the vision of SF (and those structures in Iowa) I have a problem with, not the idea that the skyline would need to change or have to remain totally recognizable.
If one likes the look, fine. Different strokes and all that. But if it is something that one can simply dismiss or just accepted as is, then I guess they could've shot the movie in a convenience store with cardboard props as long as the story is good.
The summary of the above rant? Dammit, why didn't they make the San Francisco I wanted?!
Frankly, I think if you're going for an epic feel, then the details that contribute to that look have to be satisfying. And, I guess I'm not satisfied in this case.
The thing too, is density. What kind of quality of life does one have in a city that is that densely packed with buildings and (one would presume) people? What would it be like to walk amongst those buildings? It may look kewl, but people gotta live there.
I think TGT is spot-on with his critique in this thread.
To me, this San Francisco looks more like Tim Burton's Gotham City in Batman. Or a city on the Klingon home world. Totally uninviting and overwrought. I don't like the vision. I don't like that the other shot of SF from the Academy out towards the Golden Gate shows the area is apparently built up with uber-tall buildings right down to Cliff House.
I didn't like the idea of those huge self-contained structures out in Iowa, either. So sue me.
It's not going to ruin the movie for me. But it's a disappointing look nonetheless. I wish there were tighter zoning laws in the future.
I suppose one could say that a person from 1890 Chicago or New York would probably feel overwhelmed and wouldn't recognize much in either city, today. The person probably wouldn't like it, either. And true, cities are dynamic. They change. Sometimes radically. And sometimes not for the better. So, it's the execution of the vision of SF (and those structures in Iowa) I have a problem with, not the idea that the skyline would need to change or have to remain totally recognizable.
If one likes the look, fine. Different strokes and all that. But if it is something that one can simply dismiss or just accepted as is, then I guess they could've shot the movie in a convenience store with cardboard props as long as the story is good.
The summary of the above rant? Dammit, why didn't they make the San Francisco I wanted?!
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
I may be wrong, but I'm sure Earth being viewed as a 'paradise' was not true until the 24th Century, as opposed to the early 23rd century when this film is depicted. It's quite possible that Earth cities expanded and grew during it's early Federation days, and only became a paradise when the Federation as a whole had the resources necesary to 'make it so', and founded enough new colonies to allow Earth's population to drop to more comfortable levels.
I may be wrong, but I'm sure Earth being viewed as a 'paradise' was not true until the 24th Century, as opposed to the early 23rd century when this film is depicted. It's quite possible that Earth cities expanded and grew during it's early Federation days, and only became a paradise when the Federation as a whole had the resources necesary to 'make it so'
, and founded enough new colonies to allow Earth's population to drop to more comfortable levels.Similar threads
- Locked
