I don't see many non-Trek fans, actually none, that discuss any Trek movies.
Why should they? There's a hell of a lot of comics, TV shows, movies, etc. that people around here expect me to know about and discuss (ie. Greg Cox' constant references to Batman, Sherlock Holmes, among others). He seems to expect people to understand and be able to follow references to those, but the simple fact is that not everyone here is a fan of everything. Except in the most general terms, I don't discuss those series because I've seen little/nothing of them, I'm not a fan of them, I'm not interested in them at all.
So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?
Coach Comet wrote:
Set Harth wrote:
The other extreme position says, "Absolutely nothing in the film is a ripoff of TWOK!"
I don't consider the assertion that "Absolutely nothing in STID is a rip-off of TWOK" to be an extreme position. I consider it to be a statement of fact. One reason that I do, among others, is that TWOK and STID, both being Star Trek
films, are two films in the same series. That alone makes it erroneous to characterize any intentional copying of elements from the former into the latter as a rip-off.
The implication of the use of the term rip-off
is that some sort of theft has occurred. That's simply impossible in this case.
Legal theft? No.
Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so. And before somebody goes off on a "You must be a Berman fan" rant again, I wasn't impressed with "The Naked Now," either.
Can't we just say that using Khan like they did in STID was a mistake?
Well I certainly wouldn't have used him at all, and would've used him differently, myself. Can't say it was a mistake, however. Just different from what I would have expected.
You wouldn't have used him at all, but you would have used him differently. But if you wouldn't have used him at all, how
could you have used him...