I think you misunderstand. I come here because I LIKE to see different viewpoints than my own. I want my views of Trek challenged. If we all thought the same way, there'd be little reason to come here.
Exactly. If someone calls you out for your bullshit, stand up for yourself.
And since Timewalker
is probably still watching:
As for Shakespeare... I do prefer my Shakespeare as traditional as possible, but Classic Star Trek did its nods to Shakespeare quite well.
Except I said, "Melville, Dickens, and Shakespeare."
Meyer quoted the former two extensively in TWOK for no other reason than he couldn't think of anything better.
He also gave us a bad guy whose whole shtick was to just quote Shakespeare. The guy didn't have an original thought of his own.
And, had the character not been in the hands of one of the all-time great actors, would probably be a meme of its own now.
That's being pretty dismissive of the whole "I don't believe in the no-win scenario/I don't like to lose" stuff, which really defined Kirk a bit further than had been previously seen. Meyer does like to do his riffs, but there's actually good dialog in a lot of that as well that does not all owe to Adlai Stevenson or Nixon or earlier greater writers. Facing death was a theme he was working through at that time with his print work, CONFESSIONS OF A HOMING PIGEON, which has a concluding chapter or two that anticipate TWOK in a few ways (I had read the novel before TWOK came out, and immediately reread it afterward, and have probably read it 8 or 9 times since then as well.)
I think I'd fault Meyer more as director than writer on TWOK, in that Khan loses his menace in the last act with all the wide-eyed stuff that verges a bit on comedy. That, coupled with the silly 'mix the antimatter/spread pixiedust over the energizer' business he gave Spock to do, subtracts rather than enhances. But even there it is more than made up for with stuff like the shot of Spock's empty chair on the bridge.
Err, the "Guy who just quoted Shakespeare and didn't have an original thought of his own" was Chang.
I think Khan pretty much stuck to Melville and Dickens.
Either way, my argument was (again) to point out the hypocrisy people display when they suggest, if the movie they like does something, it's good. But when the movie they don't like does the exact same thing, it's bad.