RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,276
Posts: 5,350,083
Members: 24,610
Currently online: 717
Newest member: VST

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 15 2013, 08:43 PM   #1051
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Set Harth wrote: View Post
Coach Comet wrote:
The individuals who wrote STID did not write it outside a legal relationship with the corporation that owns the intellectual property of Star Trek.
And, once again, for perhaps the third or fourth time, I never said that they did.

You see, I'm well aware that STID is a legitimate product of the Star Trek franchise, just like all other legitimate products of the Star Trek franchise. I have never argued otherwise. And I would give others enough credit to assume that they too are aware of this fact, which is why I'm not the one who can be found constantly and obnoxiously strawmanning it.

If you took the term "ripoff" to mean that I was implying something legally actionable had occurred, that's too bad. But I don't think you're the globally acknowledged arbiter of the meaning of "ripoff"...

...are you?
Of course he's not, Set. You laid full claim to that office yourself, all the way back here:
Set Harth wrote: View Post
[...]

What the hell is this supposed to even mean? Yes, it was a ripoff of TWOK. Stomping your feet and going "Is not!" doesn't change the objective reality.
As for "constantly and obnoxiously strawmanning" whatever, I think that may better describe your line of argument these last few pages than it does anyone else's here. I'll again invite you to take a step back. Present your points calmly and clearly in the first place (refrain from injecting Mitt Romney into the discussion when he has no good reason for being there, to name just one example) and that will reduce the likelihood that your position might be misunderstood by anyone. Also: lose the hostility and stop trying to make things personal - both are completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 02:44 AM   #1052
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Set Harth wrote: View Post
Coach Comet wrote:
The individuals who wrote STID did not write it outside a legal relationship with the corporation that owns the intellectual property of Star Trek.
And, once again, for perhaps the third or fourth time, I never said that they did.

You see, I'm well aware that STID is a legitimate product of the Star Trek franchise, just like all other legitimate products of the Star Trek franchise. I have never argued otherwise. And I would give others enough credit to assume that they too are aware of this fact, which is why I'm not the one who can be found constantly and obnoxiously strawmanning it.

If you took the term "ripoff" to mean that I was implying something legally actionable had occurred, that's too bad.
And perplexing because you made it clear, on a number of occasions, you didn't mean that. Yet people have ignored that point and instead persisted in concentrating on corporate/legal considerations.

But I don't think you're the globally acknowledged arbiter of the meaning of "ripoff"...

...are you?
It would seem not, as the following definitions of "rip-off" indicate:

1) Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else.
2) Something that is too much like something made by someone else.
3) An inferior imitation of something

One or two of those might be still be arguable of course, but they are not "inappropriate". While personally I think "theft" is going too far, "rip-off" appears to have a much wider variety of meanings which don't need to involve legal connotations. I believe it can therefore legitimately be applied to the act of copying a scene from one work of fiction to another with minimal changes to its core. Especially when followed up with a less that convincing cut and paste scream.

I would also question how likely such a similar event is, but I accept that blatant implausibility issues are not really something people worry about with nuTrek.

North Pole Myk wrote:
No it does't as they are two different things.
What are two different things? People and corporations? Because that's the whole point.
And it was always the point right back to before the "infamous" Mitt Romney question. Which by the way, to me, seemed to be asking why respondents were confusing corporations with people, by acting as though corporations were the entities doing the writing. Anyway North Pole Myk appeared to cast individuals aside as somehow not being part of "reality". But the "individual writer point of view", is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at this question when it comes to creative decisions, as far as I can see. So for Myk or others to ignore it there-after was at best misguided in my view and certainly not helpful to appreciating Set's argument.


M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
But I don't think you're the globally acknowledged arbiter of the meaning of "ripoff"...

...are you?
Of course he's not, Set. You laid full claim to that office yourself, all the way back here: ...
Well, both Set Harth and Coach Comet imply they know what "rip-off" means. You've quoted the passage where Set does this and Coach Comet wrote:

Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Instead of attempting to use inapplicable (and not to mention, loaded) language such as theft and rip-off, ...
It seems to me, based on the definitions that I quoted above, Set Harth has the better understanding of how the term "rip-off" can be used. However while Set only claimed that the scene in question was a rip-off, Coach Comet claimed the term itself was inapplicable. Of the two therefore, the latter seems more like an attempt to decide what the term means (though technically not quite doing so).

Moreover, while I have had some difficulty noticing instances where Set Harth may have used a "starwman argument", as I infer above, the phrase seems an actuate description of the comments of at least two or three of his respondents. Probably not deliberate on their parts. More likely just a case of getting stuck in a particular way of looking at things and being unable to see past it. But Set certainly gave them a number of opportunities to understand his position (which may explain the appearance of possible heat in his reply). These included:

Set Harth wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Also, don't we usually use that term to mean that someone stole an idea from someone else, and if so, how can this happen within a franchise ?
That's a tough one. Maybe if a franchise used more than one writer over the years?
and
Set Harth wrote: View Post
... I'm not talking about intellectual property issues at the corporate level. I'm talking about a person copying or ripping off the work of another person. No legal issues involved.
Which, along with others, in my view, make his position clear. So it seems a little tough to expect him to have done much more. But, with the benefit of hindsight, to me, any confusion appears to have resulted from a lack of knowledge about the possible meanings of "rip-off" combined with an inability to properly appreciate that ... well ... people write scripts, not corporations. Or to put it another way: Ripping-off doesn't have to involve stealing in a legal sense. It can have a creative dimension etc.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:24 AM   #1053
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

UFO wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Of course he's not...

Well...
Comments to PM, please.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 02:59 PM   #1054
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

UFO wrote: View Post
It seems to me, based on the definitions that I quoted above
In my experience, not all dictionaries are equally accurate. I tend to give Merriam-Webster greater weight than TheFreeDictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rip-off says:
Merriam-Webster's definition of rip-off wrote:
: something that is too expensive : something that is not worth its price

: something that is too much like something made by someone else

Full Definition of RIP-OFF

1 : an act or instance of stealing : theft; also : a financial exploitation

2 : a usually cheap exploitive imitation
According to that definition, merely being imitative isn't enough to be a rip-off. The object in question must also either be exploitive, or be theft, or be "too much" like an original made by someone else. (The other sense, about being overpriced, doesn't apply here, cf. A hundred dollars for a piece of bubble gum? What a rip-off! I think that it's also worth noting that, arguably, being "too much" like an original made by someone else is one variety of being exploitive.)
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:07 PM   #1055
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:17 PM   #1056
JWPlatt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
Maybe the writers were merely sending a valentine to the old fans and giving something new to the new fans.
JWPlatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:21 PM   #1057
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
I'm fairly certain that "2 : a usually cheap exploitive imitation" is referring mainly, if not exclusively, to knockoffs.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:34 PM   #1058
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

How manu other long-running film franchises ever have the chance to show AU versions of a moment like ID did? I thought it was clever (until Spock screamed "Khaaaan!")
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 04:48 PM   #1059
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
How manu other long-running film franchises ever have the chance to show AU versions of a moment like ID did? I thought it was clever (until Spock screamed "Khaaaan!")
Yeah, rather cheap fan fiction ideas like "What IF Kirk was dying in the reactor room instead of Spock?" is what I expect from multi million dollar feature films.

Had they done the same in Nemesis, with Data sacrificing himself in the engine room, dying behind a glass wall, exchanging last words with Picard, I'd call it a lame ripoff/knockoff/fuckoff as well.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 05:29 PM   #1060
Wadjda
Lieutenant Commander
 
Wadjda's Avatar
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

They could had done better. Too bad they decided to pay homage.
Wadjda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 05:33 PM   #1061
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
How manu other long-running film franchises ever have the chance to show AU versions of a moment like ID did? I thought it was clever (until Spock screamed "Khaaaan!")
Yeah, rather cheap fan fiction ideas like "What IF Kirk was dying in the reactor room instead of Spock?" is what I expect from multi million dollar feature films.

Had they done the same in Nemesis, with Data sacrificing himself in the engine room, dying behind a glass wall, exchanging last words with Picard, I'd call it a lame ripoff/knockoff/fuckoff as well.
That would never have made any sense in-universe in the way Kirk or Spock sacrificing themselves in the warp core to save the Enterprise in a conflict with Khan does.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 05:56 PM   #1062
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
How manu other long-running film franchises ever have the chance to show AU versions of a moment like ID did? I thought it was clever (until Spock screamed "Khaaaan!")
Yeah, rather cheap fan fiction ideas like "What IF Kirk was dying in the reactor room instead of Spock?" is what I expect from multi million dollar feature films.

Had they done the same in Nemesis, with Data sacrificing himself in the engine room, dying behind a glass wall, exchanging last words with Picard, I'd call it a lame ripoff/knockoff/fuckoff as well.
Aside from the glass wall I think it was virtually the same scene. Data/Spock sacrificing himself for Picard/Kirk when really its the Captain who should be giving up his life for his crew/the Federation. Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands. And Both Spock and Data (in the comics/books) returned from the dead after storing their soul somewhere safe. Could it be any more similar?
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 06:08 PM   #1063
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Elf Spock wrote: View Post
Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands.
Technically, Spock was the captain of the Enterprise.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 08:53 PM   #1064
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

I don't know why this is so fucking hard to understand.

The main theme that binds nuTrek all together is that Kirk and Spock have a shared destiny. It's a different universe, and they're different people, but they're still two halves of the same whole.

Orci and Abrams were showing that those two haves could both literally and figuratively be flipped around and the whole would still be the same and net similar outcomes.

So, no, it's nothing like Picard and Data.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 09:57 PM   #1065
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
And to some people it fulfills the definition of smart callback-ing.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.