Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

LOL: Trekkie Angered at New Star Trek Movie’s Inaccurate Representation of Futuristic San Francisco

Posted on Friday, March 13th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

San Francisco in Star Trek

In the recent Star Trek trailers, they showed shots of Starfleet Academy, which is based in a futuristic version of San Francisco. Being a resident of the bay area myself, I paused the exact moment in the 1080p version of the trailer to see how much detail they put into the establishing shot. In the foreground, you can see the Golden Gate Bridge, and if you look closely enough, you can spot Coit Tower and the Palace of Fine Arts, hidden somewhere in between the mega-futuristic skyscrapers and the very accurate San Francisco fog (click on the image above to see it in more detail). My reaction was “cool.” I was just amazed that they snuck some of the old school San Francisco landmarks into a shot which might only play for a few seconds on the big screen. But some Trekkie on YouTube is pissed off about the impossibility of the size of the buildings. Someone needs to tell this guy that it’s just a movie. Watch the video after the jump.

via: SFist

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Action/Adventure, LOL, Sci-Fi, 

  • he is so cute! is he for sale? please let me know when you have a geek deal about this guy!
  • um... wow. So, he has no problem with breaking the speed of light, fighting with aliens, matter transporters, or giant space ships.... he has a problem with, the buildings.... O.o

    Put your analyst on 'danger money' baby.
  • nice point
  • Raey
    i don't believe the buildings are 100 times larger in the trailer than they are now, there's nothing to realistically compare to scale against the two images, except the bridge, but who's to say they didn't rebuild the bridge smaller... i think what JJ was really trying to portray is not that the buildings in the future will be bigger, its just technology and lenses in the future are so much more advance, everything on film will look disproportionate depending on what equipment your using and especially compared to the naked eye... kinda like it does with film now...
  • I came in here to post exactlly the same thing.
    You gotta love internet people and how every one wants it's 15 minutes of fame.
    Anyway to counter argument him if you look pictures of new york or any other big city you couldn't tell they were gonna make buildings as big as we have now days or if you look at a picture of a chariot 100 years ago you couldn't imagine that 50 years later some one would invent a flying chariot called airplane.
  • Tom
    Um, planes have been around for about 100 years now...
  • lol
  • Trulyrough
    Yyyyeah what did the SF skyline look like 100 years ago? Now ask yourself if they saw today's skyline in a movie would they complain about how unrealistic it is.
  • anonymous
    Thats not what its about. the skyline has already been established in TNG and in ST4:TVH This is nothing les than a violation of accepted cannon!
  • haha, get a life, geek. he needs to get laid.
  • He's not exactly a nerd living in his mother's basement. According to his biography at zennie62.webs.com, he's the CEO of a private corporation, economic advisor and so on. So not only has he a life, he probably gets laid more than any of us commenting here - even if he pays for it.
  • Bobbio
    Well, I think his argument has no merit and he probably advises himself in this economic downturn to save money; thus, ANGRYBROOMSTICK is right, he needs to get laid.
  • Mystic75
    And you believe everything you read?? Just because he writes that he's a CEO of this private corporation blah, blah, blah... doesn't mean its true.
  • Anti-Septic
    This guy is a retarded douchebag, you think movie fans are really going to care about the size of buildings in the 24th century?
  • yeah! underestimate the level of audience interest to make your point! your a douche!
  • Bobbio
    No, YOU'RE a douche! Anyway, a few hundred years ago San Francisco had NO skyscrapers. So if you look at the % it has grown within the last 300 years (infinite) or the percentage its grown in the last 200 years (a freakin' lot!), it is definitely much MORE than the percentage this guy estimates in the video between now and the 24th century.
  • Somebody get this man a recliner of rage![youtube oDKVU3tiBoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDKVU3tiBoQ youtube]
  • Richardp
    YES!!!

    Exactly what I was thinking! Bravo!!
  • LOL! Too perfect. Stay strong my brother...
  • dagreenman18
    wow.... no words to express my pity.
  • There is a difference between "fiction" and "hard sci-fi" or "speculative fiction", which, arguably, Star Trek used to have a close connection to. Some Star Trek aspects used to be as accurate as possible, by using scientific consultants on the show. So, even if you don't care, people who looked at Star Trek as speculative fiction might notice certain things and care about them. Maybe the new movie will be a fun space-opera without much grounding in reality or possibility. But you shouldn't blame people for over-analyzing the movie, considering what they were used to in the past.
  • just saying
    fanboys like you cib3k is the reason people make fun of fanboys.
  • Yaaa
    While I agree with you, I don't think that filmmakers should just say "It's just a movie" and make it a ridiculous science fiction story with junk science and other non-sense, it's true Trek was always the thinking mans science fiction, and I could see Trekkies getting upset with Abrams take on the story which is a more streamlined, mass-audience friendly adventure. However, I do think there should be limits to the analyzing. I'm not a Trekkie, but I do like to analyze "Lost" when I see it, and when something sloppy is written in that just doesn't fit, it's fairly irritating as a viewer.

    But again, there should be a limit. For something as insignificant as an establishing shot of a city... just let it be. Every movie has continuity errors and small inaccuracies, I don't think it's worth complaining over. But then again, Trekkies wouldn't be Trekkies if they didn't nitpick to the barest bone.
  • First, I don't like Star Trek that much to be a fanboy. I like around half of everything they ever made, if I think about it. I was just trying to explain why it is normal that people who are used to the old Star Trek, who expect certain things, to over-analyze the new movie.

    Second, I agree with you, Yaaa. And Lost is a great example. Imagine that years from now, they start reimagining Lost in a new movie. Of course old fans will start over-analyzing each aspect of the movie, while younger people will think "meh, fanboys". Star Trek is obviously far from Lost, but some parts of it were well-thought and researched and people who are used to this attention to details will complain when it lacks. But I agree, there should be a limit.
  • No. Lost is so dull it wont make it to the end of THIS decade, let alone survive a dozen films, six spin offs and recreations only to be resurrected 40 years later in a film format it never made the jump to in first place.
  • Blasphemy!
  • What a dumb ass this isn't architect school its just a fucking movie .
  • glenn
    This guy is doing nothing to help the stereotype that all trekkies are losers.
  • Palmer
    Please tell me this guy was parodying the more serious fans out there. I mean...it's a fucking sci-fi movie. Who cares if it's not grounded in reality?
  • McDandy
    uhhh...who else is for punching this guy in the face?
  • seanovan
    Go to Nerd Alert.
  • Jack black
    he does have a point. Buildings that big would take forever to get around in. Forget about exiting.
    besides, its just a youtube vid of some guys opinion. If nitpicking ST logic is lame, those nitpicking a fellas free speech is even gayer.

    one last tidbit regarding the shot in the trailer of San Fran. Would be great if in the movie the camera pans over to the Oakland side of the bridge and Oakland hasn't changed one bit. It being the more racially "colorful" portion of the bay area and all.
  • Definitely me! I mean damn that was stupid...He coulda at least been funny instead of being a complete chode....
  • Considering the massive chain of event sit would require for Earth to discover the ability to travel across the universe, meet alien species, become a flagship planet in a federation of these races, and have San Francisco become the place where the head office of the military/exploration arm of that federation is located, I don't think it's implausible to think they might allow for large buildings in the downtown area.
  • Considering the massive chain of events it would require for Earth to discover the ability to travel across the universe, meet alien species, become a flagship planet in a federation of these races, and have San Francisco become the place where the head office of the military/exploration arm of that federation is located, I don't think it's implausible to think they might allow for large buildings in the downtown area.
  • Derek D
    ...how stupid can people be...first off its a movie so who cares, also your telling me he knows what they will be doing in the future? He thinks building size is written in stone and San Fran. doesnt ever change? What is he basing his predictions on? Does he have a time machine? Stop complaining.
  • you first.
  • Of course, any real Trekkie would know that the Original Series took place in the 23rd century, not the 24th century.

    And ya know, it's wholly possible that all provincial-minded activists were killed in the unfortunate happenings of the Third World War.

    God, I need a girlfriend.
  • This was pretty hilarious.


    i can't wait til the entire film comes out, his brain might explode.
  • I love Trekkies.
  • bobby s
    i think they need to revoke his "black guy" card
  • deathmetalhero
    this guy is totally right. Fuck abrams and his bullshit. there I said it.
  • That-GUY
    LOSER!!! Way to go Lando! Oops . . . wrong film. Doesn't matter really, ILM is doing the special effects. He doesn't think SF would lose their infrastructural ideals in 3 centuries. Please . . . look how much the world has done, both good and bad, in one century. SMUG ALERT! He needs to stop smelling his own farts from a wine glass.
  • his argument really misses the point entirely anyway, because as we all know in the 24th century Reno will be the architecural marvel of America, not San Fransisco.
  • That-GUY
    Very valid point.
  • Matt
    Thankfully I don't live there anymore. Provincial, human-scale, and more dense with random human excrement (urine, feces and vomit) than any other city I have ever seen in the world. Watch your step!
  • Bang- Kok!

    Hillarious.
  • dlb
    that was the biggest waste of a 1 minute and 40 seconds I've ever endured
  • Madt Kinderkampf
    Well, my thinking here is that 100 years ago, you didn't get many buildings that were taller than three storeys. The invention of the elevator greatly increased the size of our structures. people didn't mind taking an elevator ride up to the 110th floor. 110 storeys is a mighty walk, let me tell you.

    Now let's fast forward 300 years into the future. The invention of the Turbolift and it's astounding speed has made it possible to build towers that are a thousand storeys.

    Also I don't think that the buildings really were 100 times larger than they are today. it just looked to me like there were more of the high rises than there are today. A greater population would require living spaces. This all seems like a normal progression of city planning to me.
  • I laugh that some of you think he is a star trek fan. He doesn't even allude to that.

    Anyway, movie looks like absolute crap regardless.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.