In The Future, Buildings Must Be Tall And Fans Less Anal

If I ever want to know just how dismissive io9 commenters can feel about (admittedly insanely anal) fanboy complaints, I now have a new favorite collection of examples: Star Trek's San Francisco Urban Planning post.

For those who missed this incredible example of snark, here's all you need to know: A Bay Area fan saw the future San Francisco in the latest trailer for JJ Abrams' Star Trek and wondered whatever happened to the city's zoning laws to keep large buildings out. Now, here's what you thought:

SanvaliEquiflux: "in 300 years san fransisco probably wont even exist... i'd be happy that they are using it in the movie so shut up."

Robotic Bilbo Bagins has no use for fleshy ones: "Ugh. It's a movie! And you know, I'm sure a good deal of people just think of San Francisco as just another city."

Balius: "I'm willing to compromise here. We'll pretend that there were a lot of protests about the zoning law changes, and more protests about the mega buildings first being built, but ultimately the corrupt politico-types overruled the noble native of the once beautiful city. In return, we'll simply agree that none of that has any relevance at all to a gorram Star Trek movie set in an alternative timeline future Earth."

geesejuggler: "Out of all the flaws with the new Star Trek, that's your problem? This guy taken this a little too very far. And this is coming from a person who get into a heated debate on 'who's a bigger douche, Lois Lane or Lex Luthor' with her own family! lol"

Garrison Dean: "Jesus. You know what else they don't have in San Fran right now? Starships."

Kurt Roithinger: "gee whiz. in DS9, they put a second story onto the golden gate bridge. sacreliege, i say! i do love the '300 years from now, buildings couldn't possibly be that tall' angle. 300 years ago, anything more than 3 stories was practically a skyscraper or a cathedral."

hopskipper: "Let's summarize here: Giant alien beasts = fine. Black holes = no problem. Imploding planets = I buy that. Extremely tall buildings in SF = LUDICROUS!!!"

Randy Kiessig: "Seriously bro, its a movie.. a Science FICTION movie. And to top all that off, its set in the FUTURE."

Lou Zucaro: "His reasoning about the size of the buildings is ridiculous. It's 300 years between now and then. He says there's no photographic evidence from San Francisco's past to show that buildings could grow in size that much in 300 years. Well, on the one hand, he's right, since there were no photographs 300 years ago. On the other hand, there is no other hand, because it's a stupid argument."

shaithis: "There are millions of Star Trek geeks right now saying. Jesus, what a nerd!"

Thankfully, Twisk knows what the real intent of the complaint was:

So us Star Trek fans need to boycott San Francisco then, right? Got it.

As someone who moved from San Francisco relatively recently, I now have a new reason to give when people ask me why. Thanks, Trek Fandom!