London in the 23rd century (via Star Trek Into Darkness)

I’m a little bit obsessed with the futuristic London skyline the trailers for Star Trek Into Darkness have been teasing us with:
London skyline Star Trek Into Darkness

(Click here for a larger version.)

I think maybe it’s because 1) I love this city, 2) I’m here, and 3) I’m here just at the moment when London is developing a recognizable skyline, not just thanks to the Shard but because of a whole bunch of other really tall (for London) buildings that are going up now, with “the Cheese Grater” and “the Pinnacle” and “the Walkie-Talkie” joining “the Gherkin” in The City alone.

Londonist, from which I grabbed the image, notes:

The clip shows a city much-altered from our own day, with at least a dozen Shard-height towers. Some buildings have survived. St Paul’s nestles among the skyscrapers, its ‘protected views’ long overturned. In the distance, both Waterloo Bridge and the Golden Jubilee footbridges remain. We also know from the poster that the Gherkin and the London Eye have also survived into the 23rd Century. Was our city unaffected by the nuclear wars of the mid-21st Century? Have these landmarks been rebuilt? Or are we in yet another alternative timeline? Much for hardcore Trekkers to debate, and we’ll leave them to it.

I got nothing deep to add. I just wanted a reason to post this image so I could keep looking at it.

share and enjoy
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Bob Devney
Bob Devney
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 6:53pm

Cool, thanks. But — can’t find the London Eye here. How could I miss it?

reply to  Bob Devney
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 7:43pm

It isn’t in this shot. According to that quote, the Eye is visible on one of the film’s posters.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bob Devney
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 8:58pm

Take a look at this high-res of the poster:

If you look directly left from Cumberbatch’s left foot, you’ll see the Eye in front of a building that look like an old-fashioned Blitz bomb. To Cumberbatch’s right is the Gherkin.

Jess Haskins
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Apr 19, 2013 2:24pm

I’m sure this has been suggested before, but this poster also works well if you look at it as Sherlock’s belated return after Reichenbach.

“It’s been three HUNDRED years!”

“I had no idea that you would be so affected.”

Joanne Howe
Joanne Howe
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 6:56pm

London has to be a world-leader in finding derpy nicknames for buildings!

reply to  Joanne Howe
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 7:56pm

Somebody else got to “Empire State” first. Actually I think there’s a whole article about the difference in naming ethics between America and the UK. Car names are particularly interesting – we get “Golf” and “Cortina” or “Focus” – the Americans get “”Cobra” or “Mustang” and (my personal favourite) “Crossfire”.

We did get the “Probe”, which I think is too homoerotic even for the Brits.

Do the Americans choose phallic names for buildings too?

Adam Stevenson
reply to  Captain_Swing666
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 11:38pm

There is of course Trump Towers in New York – the only building I know named after a Northern term for a fart.

reply to  Captain_Swing666
Fri, Apr 19, 2013 9:10pm

Well, as New York is the Empire State, the Empire State building is a pretty straightforward name. As for other buildings . . . Well, there’s the Sears (now Willis) Tower, the Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Center . . . uh, I can’t think of any famous skyscrapers on the West coast, besides the Space Needle. I guess that one might be phallic, but it’s a bit of a stretch. There are a few with nicknames, like the “Batman building” in Nashville. But no, the naming is usually pretty boring and just represents whatever company put it up in the first place.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 2:44am

Given the number of historical landmarks in London, one would think that London needs a “recognizable” skyline as much as Paris needs a chain of fast food restaurants.