The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
I believe this is the sin that the director and writers of Star Trek: Into Darkness committed.
I wonder about that:
I concede the obvious that this meant to be humorous, and trailers =/= film. However, that doesn't diminish its significance. Nolan borrowed plenty of visual cues from Batman
to create visual parallelism. I could write up a whole long analysis with screencaps and the whole works, but it'd just be a waste of time. I think the video is enough to make the point. He didn't use dialog, but it was unnecessary and would have just been superfluous.
I will also add that TDKR was bloated with both visual and
verbal cues from his previous two films.
In Abrams case, the dialog was important because it added clarity and weight to the scene and its thematic significance. Without the familiar lines, the two-way mirror is just a pane of glass. Non the less, the visual juxtaposition is still the primary component here because, in motion pictures, the picture is ALWAYS
the central artistic element.
It's pretty nearly impossible to find a film--any film--made within the last 60 years that didn't lift a scene, visual, or line of dialog from someplace else. TWOK, I might add, had plenty of all three. This is the reality of the art form.
I think people are so upset over the radiation scene because they believe it infringes upon something they hold beloved and sacred. I'm sure there was a literary scholar or two who, after leaving the theatre in 1982, introduced palm to face.