Hmm. I don't remember the music . . . I should check it out.
When I'm writing Trek, I mostly listen to the soundtracks for KHAN, FIRST CONTACT, and STAR TREK (2009.)
What is more Trek to you?
- Thread starter los2188
- Start date
Hmm. I don't remember the music . . . I should check it out.
When I'm writing Trek, I mostly listen to the soundtracks for KHAN, FIRST CONTACT, and STAR TREK (2009.)
The most advanced weather control system is on Risa. Without the system, Risa is a miserable jungle world. The lives of the native people and their guests are further improved by industrial replicators and seismic regulators.
On Earth, there is the weather control system and seismic regulators. Some regulators are located in San Francisco. The planet is powered by a global power grid, with individual cities having their own reserve banks.
However, even in DS9, the writers still held to some of what Roddenberry believed. On Earth, according to Sisko, there is no crime, no poverty, no disease, and no war. According to Troi, these were eradicated in the early 22nd century.
JJ Abrams' vision of Earth doesn't jive with what was stated in Star Trek pre-2009. On a world with no crime, what need would there be for a police force? (I know it's an idiotic question; however, police were created to solve and prevent crimes. No crime, no police.)
With its focus on Starfleet, I feel that we don't learn much about life in the Federation in the films or TV shows. So, for me, that is one of the defining features of Star Trek - we see the Federation through the perspective of Starfleet personnel. I don't know if it's possible to do a film or TV series set in this universe where the focus is not on Starfleet.
It's interesting to me at least that the only time that Earth is interesting is when an outside force is set on destroying the planet. So, for me, seeing Earth threaten again, is Star Trek.
On Earth, there is the weather control system and seismic regulators. Some regulators are located in San Francisco. The planet is powered by a global power grid, with individual cities having their own reserve banks.
However, even in DS9, the writers still held to some of what Roddenberry believed. On Earth, according to Sisko, there is no crime, no poverty, no disease, and no war. According to Troi, these were eradicated in the early 22nd century.
JJ Abrams' vision of Earth doesn't jive with what was stated in Star Trek pre-2009. On a world with no crime, what need would there be for a police force? (I know it's an idiotic question; however, police were created to solve and prevent crimes. No crime, no police.)
With its focus on Starfleet, I feel that we don't learn much about life in the Federation in the films or TV shows. So, for me, that is one of the defining features of Star Trek - we see the Federation through the perspective of Starfleet personnel. I don't know if it's possible to do a film or TV series set in this universe where the focus is not on Starfleet.
It's interesting to me at least that the only time that Earth is interesting is when an outside force is set on destroying the planet. So, for me, seeing Earth threaten again, is Star Trek.
Lets be real, no crime doesn't mean absolutely zero crime.
Unless you start genetically programming everyone before they are born, there will always be some rebels , some psychos or some naughty teenagers ready to cause issues.
We actually never saw Earth at all in the original series, except in time-travel excursions to the Cold War, the Great Depression, etc. It's perhaps worth noting that the opening spiel was all about strange new world, the final frontier, etc. Not:
"Earth: an enlightened planet where hardship, prejudice, and danger now longer exist. This the home of the Starship Enterprise, boldly practicing utopian ideals on a strange new world full of well-adjusted people with no conflicts or problems. . . ."
And if there was no crime. Why were there at least two episodes set in asylums for the criminally insane? And why did Harry Mudd have a long criminal record? And what about Lenore Caridian and her murder spree? Or Ben Finney's plot to frame Kirk? Why are there defense attorneys like Samuel Cogley if there is no crime?
Heck, even Tom Paris got sent to a "rehabilitation colony" or something . . ..
"Earth: an enlightened planet where hardship, prejudice, and danger now longer exist. This the home of the Starship Enterprise, boldly practicing utopian ideals on a strange new world full of well-adjusted people with no conflicts or problems. . . ."
And if there was no crime. Why were there at least two episodes set in asylums for the criminally insane? And why did Harry Mudd have a long criminal record? And what about Lenore Caridian and her murder spree? Or Ben Finney's plot to frame Kirk? Why are there defense attorneys like Samuel Cogley if there is no crime?
Heck, even Tom Paris got sent to a "rehabilitation colony" or something . . ..
Last edited:
Thing is, I remember Tom Paris talking about being mugged once on Earth. No one believed him until he explained it was part of some prank to generate tourism or something.
24th century Earth seems to have no civilian law enforcement. Sisko got stabbed in the streets of Earth while on a leave of absence and it was Starfleet which investigated the crime and arrested the guy that stabbed him. Why the hell is the military called in just because some guy got stabbed?
24th century Earth seems to have no civilian law enforcement. Sisko got stabbed in the streets of Earth while on a leave of absence and it was Starfleet which investigated the crime and arrested the guy that stabbed him. Why the hell is the military called in just because some guy got stabbed?
I agree completely.
Fantastic Big Three movie, a road trip of campy delight.
WONDERFUL soundtrack.
Sisko isn't just some guy.
I wonder what they did with all the undesirables on their way forward into glorious evolution. I picture it like the stories we hear of certain countries holding the Olympics. Round up all the addicts and bums hanging around in the street and parks and drive them into the middle of nowhere and dump them there. Only this is the future so maybe they get their own Thunderdome to hang out in, away from the enlightened evolved ones. Of course you sterilize them so the problem will gradually go away.
When they said these absolutist statements, they were referring to the planet Earth exclusively. It is described as a paradise. There are pockets of the Federation where there is crime, disease, and poverty.
There is one asylum for the insane - the Elba II Colony. And, when the Enterprise visited the colony, the Federation had developed a new drug to cure insanity. The other colony on Tantalus was for those who committed criminal acts and weren't regarded as insane. They were rehabilitated.
As for lawyers, I remember what Melinda Snodgrass said. She said that when presenting her story, "The Measure of a Man", for approval to Gene Roddenberry, that he said emphatically that there are no lawyers. Humans have found other ways to settle their differences A producer on the show had a private meeting with the guy, and the next day Roddenberry had backed down.
Roddenberry had a negative influence on the later Star Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY). His vision of an Earth as a perfect paradise and where humans don't have interpersonal conflicts lead to stories in which conflict had to be introduced from an outside agency. This created a nightmare for the writers. Roddenberry's ideology had poisoned his creation. JJ Abrams has brought Star Trek back to its TOS roots, where Earth isn't a paradise and humans have interpersonal conflicts.
Considering that we have decoded the genetic code of our species and are developing techniques to detect flaws in that code, it's conceivable in the future that people who might have tendencies towards violent and criminal behavior could be identified early on and treated. This wouldn't take away interpersonal conflicts.
There is one asylum for the insane - the Elba II Colony. And, when the Enterprise visited the colony, the Federation had developed a new drug to cure insanity. The other colony on Tantalus was for those who committed criminal acts and weren't regarded as insane. They were rehabilitated.
As for lawyers, I remember what Melinda Snodgrass said. She said that when presenting her story, "The Measure of a Man", for approval to Gene Roddenberry, that he said emphatically that there are no lawyers. Humans have found other ways to settle their differences A producer on the show had a private meeting with the guy, and the next day Roddenberry had backed down.
Roddenberry had a negative influence on the later Star Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY). His vision of an Earth as a perfect paradise and where humans don't have interpersonal conflicts lead to stories in which conflict had to be introduced from an outside agency. This created a nightmare for the writers. Roddenberry's ideology had poisoned his creation. JJ Abrams has brought Star Trek back to its TOS roots, where Earth isn't a paradise and humans have interpersonal conflicts.
Considering that we have decoded the genetic code of our species and are developing techniques to detect flaws in that code, it's conceivable in the future that people who might have tendencies towards violent and criminal behavior could be identified early on and treated. This wouldn't take away interpersonal conflicts.
Sisko stabbed? But... but... I was told Earth has no crime!
Saying earth has no police becuse we didn't see them before the 2009 movie is like saying there are no firemen or lifeguards or hospitals.
...or toilets.
So let's say you turn out to be a jerk on earth. Not a killer, just a jerk who sleeps with other people's partners, ridicules people like Barclay, habitually lies about other people to cause problems. What happens to you? Presumably the instant you commit a crime you get shipped offworld and never come back, but in reaction to the suffocating niceness of everyone you very carefully are a completely legal jerk.
You could really fuck up paradise for folk if you wanted to.
Actually there's nothing in the teaser that hasn't been done in Trek movies before, it just looks a whole lot better at being Trek.
RAMA
That wasn't an isolated incident. I was just reading Paula Block's and Terry Erdmann's new book on TNG and they cite some other instances in which the Roddenberry's increasingly utopian edicts were getting more and more extreme. Among other things, Roddenberry insisted that orphaned children didn't mourn their dead parents (because death was a natural part of the cycle of life), that people in the future didn't worry about getting old, that Picard wouldn't need a whole episode to recover from his Borg experience, etc.
All of which is very enlightened, to be sure, but doesn't bear much resemblance to human nature--or Roddenberry's earlier approach to TOS.
You can get carried away with the "utopian" thing . . . and STAR TREK has never been as "utopian" as some fans want to pretend it was.
Last edited:
It doesn't bear much resemblance to human nature and more importantly, doesn't make for compelling drama. The extreme utopia has always been the silliest, hardest part of Trek to swallow and I'm honestly glad that while things are generally pretty good in the future, people are still people. It's much easier to relate to the TOS cast than it is ANY other cast in the history of Trek, IMO.
That's it in a nutshell.
No matter how they described Earth in shows like TNG and DS9, when they showed it the planet looked like a gated upper middle class American suburb.
I don't know how true it is, but I once read that Roddenberry wanted TNG's Earth to be a "nudist paradise" - basically the world we saw in "Haven" minus the God spacestation and instant death penalty.
Where, apparently, they listen to chamber music and Gilbert & Sullivan a lot.
I liked to think that the new movies a bit more rock-n-roll. Which is a good thing.
It most definitely is. Both rock-n-roll and a good thing.
Similar threads
