Frequenting Earth

[Mojochi]

This gets touched on now & then, & probably had it's own thread in the past, but it's interesting to me that while it was forbidden to feature 23rd century Earth on TOS, the movies featured Earth in all the films, in some minor amount

Some folks don't care much for it, given how the show is meant to be about exploring the stars, & I can relate to that. In a slightly different way, that was my major initial gripe with DS9, (Not a trek throughout the stars) but I don't think featuring Earth was all that bad, not for the film format anyway, which was more character driven than the show's story driven format. It's pretty important in character stories to have roots for everyone.

The ship also needs a launching point, for the in-universe logic. Basically TOS is about a five year exploration mission, but by the time the movies begin, that mission is long over for this crew, and we're in the wake of how their lives have developed, thereafter. Even TMP has them all scattered to the wind at the beginning. So essentially Roddenberry himself gave the go ahead to break his own TOS bible rule & feature 23rd century Earth. (Probably because they finally had the money to do it right)

Besides, where else would all these people/officers (Most of whom are from Earth, where Starfleet is headquartered) end up reuniting, to take on each of these subsequent missions, featured in the films? 6, 5, 3, 2, & 1 all have to begin somewhere, & 4 kind of needed to send them back there in the aftermath of what they'd done

The only alternative to having them back on Earth to some degree, now & then, is to still have them on the same ship out there, with the same crew, still having been on assignment all this time without any significant change, & how feasible is that, after all this time had passed?

 

[Tenacity]

The Prohibition on visiting Earth during TOS being too expensive never made much sense to me.

Show the ship in orbit, a mention in the captain's log, short image of a futuristic city, the actors are on a set. Where would the unusual expense be?

Roddenberry's statement that he didn't want to get into the political - social makeup of Earth also is strange, in that a story set on Earth would not of had to of included anything of the sort.

Roddenberry established early on that there was racial equality among Human's in the 23rd century, which in the 1960's would have been the big controversial thing.

So why not have a TOS Earth story?

 

[Christopher]

Besides, where else would all these people/officers (Most of whom are from Earth, where Starfleet is headquartered) end up reuniting, to take on each of these subsequent missions, featured in the films? 6, 5, 3, 2, & 1 all have to begin somewhere, & 4 kind of needed to send them back there in the aftermath of what they'd done

"Where else" is an odd question -- or at least it should be. The Federation is supposed to have hundreds of planets, including numerous human colony worlds. So it's weird the way onscreen Trek reflexively assumes that every human is from Earth, every Vulcan is from Vulcan, every Andorian is from Andoria, etc. That's kind of missing the whole point of colonies. I'm ethnically English and Scottish, but I've never been to Great Britain. So there should be millions of 23rd-century humans who've never been to Earth.

The Prohibition on visiting Earth during TOS being too expensive never made much sense to me.

Show the ship in orbit, a mention in the captain's log, short image of a futuristic city, the actors are on a set. Where would the unusual expense be?

If that's all you're going to do, why not just set the story on a starbase, then? The Enterprise was supposed to be a deep-space ship probing the frontier. Returning home to Earth should've been a really big deal, not something you'd do as just a throwaway.

Roddenberry's statement that he didn't want to get into the political - social makeup of Earth also is strange, in that a story set on Earth would not of had to of included anything of the sort.

Roddenberry established early on that there was racial equality among Human's in the 23rd century, which in the 1960's would have been the big controversial thing.

It wasn't about controversy. TOS avoided showing future Earth for the same reason it avoided setting a clear calendar date. Roddenberry knew that speculations about the future were risky, either being too optimistic or too pessimistic about how long it would take for certain advances to come about. So he preferred to keep the show's portrayal of the future relatively vague.


Part of the reason so many Trek movies have involved Earth is that movie execs feel that audiences respond better to a threat to Earth than a threat to some alien planet. That was probably part of the thinking behind TMP, but part was having more money to spend on depicting the future, and part was that Roddenberry had gotten more caught up in the image of himself as a futurist and wanted to showcase his utopian vision. (Early drafts of the film had more extensive Earth-based scenes.) As for TWOK, I figure that mainly had scenes at Earth so that it could reuse stock drydock footage from TMP. And TSFS went back there so it could reuse Kirk's apartment set and the like. TVH did a threat-to-Earth story because Nimoy wanted an environmentalist message. And after that it just kind of became a habit.

 

[Mojochi]

"Where else" is an odd question -- or at least it should be. The Federation is supposed to have hundreds of planets, including numerous human colony worlds. So it's weird the way onscreen Trek reflexively assumes that every human is from Earth, every Vulcan is from Vulcan, every Andorian is from Andoria, etc. That's kind of missing the whole point of colonies. I'm ethnically English and Scottish, but I've never been to Great Britain. So there should be millions of 23rd-century humans who've never been to Earth.

They did get more into that with the TNG cast, with some of them not being from Earth, Beverly (Copernicus City, Luna) & Tasha (Turkana IV). Even Wesley is probably not indigenous to Earth, but the TOS cast are all from places on Earth except Spock, & then there's the fact that they all work for Starfleet, & Earth is where it's headquartered. If they were going to reunite somewhere for a new mission, or new ship, it's most reasonably going to be there. Kirk was admiralty, & a number of the others were working with the academy in TWoK. It's not unusual at all for them to be established there frequently, when they aren't assigned on missions

 

[Christopher]

then there's the fact that they all work for Starfleet, & Earth is where it's headquartered. If they were going to reunite somewhere for a new mission, or new ship, it's most reasonably going to be there.

Hardly. What do you think all those dozens of starbases are for? Not to mention that Starfleet would surely have offices and facilities on every significant Federation member planet. It doesn't make any sense to assume that every bit of business a widespread organization conducts has to take place at its headquarters; that would defeat the whole purpose of being widespread. Particularly for an organization called Starfleet, one that has the responsibility for patrolling the Federation's borders, protecting and supporting all its many member worlds, and exploring the vast uncharted reaches beyond its territory. The Enterprise in TOS spent the vast majority of its time outside of Federation space, on the uncharted frontier. Logically, the command base for its activities would be on the outer fringes of the Federation or beyond, not way, way back in the Federation's capital. Something like Starbase Yorktown from Star Trek Beyond is just the thing -- a facility far from Earth, on the outer border of the Federation, but existing to serve as the anchor of Federation and Starfleet presence in the frontier beyond, as a home base for exploratory and diplomatic efforts. Logically, a large Federation should mean that there are numerous centers of Federation civilization and power spread out widely throughout space and becoming even more numerous and widespread over time. Assuming that everything has to be based on Earth itself is a failure of imagination, one that too many Trek productions have been guilty of over the years.

 

[Mojochi]

Hardly. What do you think all those dozens of starbases are for? Not to mention that Starfleet would surely have offices and facilities on every significant Federation member planet. It doesn't make any sense to assume that every bit of business a widespread organization conducts has to take place at its headquarters; that would defeat the whole purpose of being widespread. Particularly for an organization called Starfleet, one that has the responsibility for patrolling the Federation's borders, protecting and supporting all its many member worlds, and exploring the vast uncharted reaches beyond its territory. The Enterprise in TOS spent the vast majority of its time outside of Federation space, on the uncharted frontier. Logically, the command base for its activities would be on the outer fringes of the Federation or beyond, not way, way back in the Federation's capital. Something like Starbase Yorktown from Star Trek Beyond is just the thing -- a facility far from Earth, on the outer border of the Federation, but existing to serve as the anchor of Federation and Starfleet presence in the frontier beyond, as a home base for exploratory and diplomatic efforts. Logically, a large Federation should mean that there are numerous centers of Federation civilization and power spread out widely throughout space and becoming even more numerous and widespread over time. Assuming that everything has to be based on Earth itself is a failure of imagination, one that too many Trek productions have been guilty of over the years.

But that's the way it's always been, & while I don't disagree with your perspective, my original point is that there's no reason to have an issue with the way they did it. Starfleet headquarters & academy is in San Francisco, & while they could unite in a variety of places, it's not unreasonable to have them do it on the planet that most of the TOS gang is from, which also happens to be where the HQ is, & some of them are currently doing duty, while awaiting another assignment

Ultimately, I'll never disagree with the statement that Star Trek could have done some things better. All I'm saying is that what they did isn't necessarily bad as it is, least of all, with this minute detail

 

[Christopher]

But that's the way it's always been, & while I don't disagree with your perspective, my original point is that there's no reason to have an issue with the way they did it.

Well, what you said was "where else" could they have reunited, as if Earth were the only option, period. "It's okay the way it was" is one thing, "It couldn't have been anything else" is a whole other thing. So it was your phrasing that threw me off. I tend to take things pretty literally.

Besides, the way I see it is, if we had all settled for the way things have always been, there would never have been a Star Trek to begin with. Sometimes it's good to be dissatisfied. Heck, a large part of the reason I became a science fiction writer was because of watching Star Trek, being inspired by parts of it, but looking at other parts and thinking, "How could this be done better?" Just as Gene Roddenberry asked that same question about the science fiction TV and movies he grew up with and created Star Trek as his answer. It's a question that's always worth asking.

 

[Mojochi]

You're still kind of missing the point they they're mostly human, & from Earth, where they also train, & headquarter. I still kind of stand by my wording. That they put them on Earth once in a while isn't detrimental to the storytelling. That I ask "where else" is to suggest that in order to write a different place for these humans to be coming together, when not on assignment, is more complicated than it needs to be for who they are, & what's going on, imho. Where else is more at home for them, when they aren't on a mission?

 

[Christopher]

You're still kind of missing the point they they're mostly human, & from Earth, where they also train, & headquarter.

Obviously I know that's what the writers did. My point is that I wish they hadn't done it that way, because it's foolish in the context of what the Federation is supposed to be. It is contradictory and stupid to posit an interstellar civilization with hundreds of planets, including many human colony worlds, and then to have everything happen on Earth. It was a bad idea on the writers' part. TOS made the wiser choice to avoid Earth, although it still made the mistake of having too many of its characters be from Earth. The movies' fixation on using Earth over and over was a bad habit and it undermined the portrayal of the Federation as a truly interstellar civilization.

That I ask "where else" is to suggest that in order to write a different place for these humans to be coming together, when not on assignment, is more complicated than it needs to be for who they are, & what's going on, imho.

No, it's not complicated at all, because it's what TOS and TAS spent 5 years doing. And again, "what's going on" is never an immutable fact in a work of fiction. It's the result of the writers' decisions, and those writers could have made different decisions to begin with. It's a contradiction in terms to say that writers have no power over their own decisions.

Where else is more at home for them, when they aren't on a mission?

People change their homes all the time. My grandparents moved to Cincinnati to start their family, and my father, his three older siblings, my sister, and I were all born in Cincinnati; but all of them except for my father and me ended up making their homes in different cities all over the country. People who travel widely, like naval officers, often fall in love with the countries they visit (or with people therein) and end up moving there permanently after their tours. (The '80s Trek novel Crisis on Centaurus established that Kirk owned a valley he'd fallen in love with on Centaurus and had built a cabin there. And of course, canonically, the Earth-born Ben Sisko came to see Bajor as his home and intended to live there for the rest of his life.)

Besides, you're making a big assumption that they'd be on leave at all. Just because they weren't currently on the Enterprise, that wouldn't mean they were off duty altogether, just reassigned. They could have been given ground assignments at starbases or Starfleet facilities on any number of planets. After all, there are years between TOS and TMP, between TMP and TWOK, between TFF and TUC. They must've had other Starfleet assignments in the interim.

 

[Nyotarules]

I hope if Star Trek is ever rebooted and keeps the idea of an intergalactic Federation it displays this on the screen and not be too Earth focused. Just as everyone on Earth is not from same nation state, every human on Star Trek does not need to be born on Earth or even live on Earth or anywhere near the Sol system and every Federation institution does not need to have Earth as its base. Unless the whole of California state has turned into Federation office space, the idea that little San Francisco is the home of a space exploratory base that not only represented the whole of United Earth but the whole of the Federation is laughable.
Everyone in San Francisco must be working for Starfleet in the ST universe lol

 

[Jeyl]

I've said this time and again. Earth should be destroyed.

 

[gottacook]

Despite its story deficiencies and Ralph Senensky's justifiable complaints about the editing, "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" has one of my favorite lines of the whole series, or at least one of my favorite line deliveries: when Miranda Jones (Diana Muldaur), in conversation with Kirk about the flora in the ship's greenhouse, says "I've never been to Earth." That line alone reveals how widespread humanity has grown in the years since warp drive began.

I saw this episode on NBC around the same time as I discovered Robert Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy in my junior high school library, wherein humanity has been spreading out from Earth for hundreds of years longer than in Star Trek and a much larger proportion are native to other planets. Interwoven with ordinary narration are present-tense passages that put you right there, starting on page 1: "The slave market lies on the spaceport side of the famous Plaza of Liberty, facing the hill crowned by the still more famous Praesidium of the Sargon, capitol of the Nine Worlds. The boy did not recognize it; he did not even know what planet he was on. [...]"

I've always seen Miranda's line "I've never been to Earth" as having the exact same effect. Generally when we see people specifically identified as human colonists in a TOS episode, we are told that they arrived directly from Earth ("This Side of Paradise") or we are given to assume that they did (both Planet Q, where the episode begins, and Tarsus 4 in "The Conscience of the King"). Or we meet people who may be the descendants of Earth colonists (for example, the inhabitants of Argelius 2 and Rigel 4 in "Wolf in the Fold") but because this is unimportant to the story, it's left vague; we are given no clue as to how long ago these presumed Earth colonies were established, or whether these people are of Earth origin at all. So for Miranda - unambiguously a descendant of Earthers - to say she's never been to Earth represents a substantial departure and a valuable one.

 

[Marsden]

I've said this time and again. Earth should be destroyed.

But it's where I keep all of my stuff!

 

[STEPhon IT]

Are there any ideas where the ship could've been launched in the beginning of a Star Trek film?

 

[Jeyl]

But it's where I keep all of my stuff!

Exactly. Where do you go from the point where you lose everything? A series about humanity reaching Utopian levels and all of a sudden that Utopia is now gone. The seat of the Federation and Humanity's home. What do you got?

For Star Trek writers, Earth is the 'end all be all' of Star Trek's existence. You cannot have Star Trek if Earth is destroyed.
But for me? We still have the Vulcans, Andorians, Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, Gorn ect. Not to mention the hundreds of Earth like planets (Including complete replicas of Earth) that Humanity already inhabits. Telling ya, Star Trek would get a lot more interesting if Earth wasn't part of a story's equation.

How many science fiction stories have an Earth? Now how many science fiction series have Vulcans, Klingons, ect that ONLY Star Trek has?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Hardly. What do you think all those dozens of starbases are for? Not to mention that Starfleet would surely have offices and facilities on every significant Federation member planet. It doesn't make any sense to assume that every bit of business a widespread organization conducts has to take place at its headquarters; that would defeat the whole purpose of being widespread. Particularly for an organization called Starfleet, one that has the responsibility for patrolling the Federation's borders, protecting and supporting all its many member worlds, and exploring the vast uncharted reaches beyond its territory. The Enterprise in TOS spent the vast majority of its time outside of Federation space, on the uncharted frontier. Logically, the command base for its activities would be on the outer fringes of the Federation or beyond, not way, way back in the Federation's capital. Something like Starbase Yorktown from Star Trek Beyond is just the thing -- a facility far from Earth, on the outer border of the Federation, but existing to serve as the anchor of Federation and Starfleet presence in the frontier beyond, as a home base for exploratory and diplomatic efforts. Logically, a large Federation should mean that there are numerous centers of Federation civilization and power spread out widely throughout space and becoming even more numerous and widespread over time. Assuming that everything has to be based on Earth itself is a failure of imagination, one that too many Trek productions have been guilty of over the years.

The sad thing about Star Trek Beyond being like that is, the movie failed at the box office, even though it was about exploring a planet in deep space and stopping off at a starbase prior to being on that mission-curious, that, and I wonder if that detail of the plot was why it failed at the box office.

 

[Tenacity]

Into Darkness probably had more to do with people not seeing Beyond than any aspect of the plot.

 

[Christopher]

Into Darkness probably had more to do with people not seeing Beyond than any aspect of the plot.

Which is a shame, since Beyond is a much better movie than STID.

 

[Tenacity]

Not to mention that Starfleet would surely have offices and facilities on every significant Federation member planet.

But we never see this. Yes it makes some sense, but just "making sense" doesn't mean this is the way things are done. Starfleet exists on Earth, various star-bases and outposts, and there are starships.

** warning possible story ideas (like Christopher needs my help) **

Maybe the majority of Federation member don't want star-bases on their worlds or in their space. Why? Perhaps it has to do with internal Federation politics and where lines are drawn. Establishing star-bases within their territories might be seen as a infringement on the members independence and sovereignty.

Might also be a on-going way of reminding the Federation who are the bosses and who is the subordinate.

At the end of Nemesis, after having it's bow crushed the Enterprise E travels all the way back to Earth to have a new bow attached, there were no facilities closer?

Okay, maybe a star-base wouldn't have the capacity to carry out that level of reconstruction, but how many major Federation member worlds did Picard travel past, with his bow open to space?

If Picard had no option but to use Earth for the reconstruction, then what we saw in the movie would "make sense."

 

[Christopher]

But we never see this. Yes it makes some sense, but just "making sense" doesn't mean this is the way things are done.

My point, though, is that it should be done. I'm not being a slave to what's onscreen. Merely cataloguing what's there is how you write a Wiki entry, not how you critique a creative work. Critique involves analyzing the creative choices that went into a work and pointing out areas where there's room for improvement. And Star Trek's portrayal of a truly interstellar civilization is an area where there is enormous room for improvement.