Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Cara007, Nov 1, 2013.
Pulaski had personality, which is more than I can say about Dr Crusher.
We know that now, yes, but not when Roddenberry made his very public, angry statement that I was quoting.
Additionally, Muldaur did not return to TNG because she had not signed a standard five-year contract. She told producers she wished to be unavailable for at least the first three episodes of Season Three, in order to do the reunion telemovie, "The Return of McCloud", and they suddenly needed another replacement CMO for the scripts about to go into production. Bringing back McFadden turned out to be a fortuitous solution to several problems.
I thought that the part of CorporalClegg's post that I quoted, wherein he correctly identifies that words like uninspired, when used of writing, are in fact meant to refer to the writing process, and he correctly points out that the warp core death scene in fact was adapted, was spot-on, except as noted below. What is there in that part of the post that could be called bizarre?
However, on second reading, I see something that I missed the first time, which is that I think that both CorporalClegg and BigJake are wrong about what "tired writing" means. I've always understood "tired writing" to be synonymous with "overused writing", and I suspect that, in that, tired is a figure of speech meant to apply to the reader, as in I'm tired of reading this sort of thing! Still, CC is right that it doesn't refer to the writing itself, except grammatically. I could be wrong about this, though (and maybe the figure of speech is that words get tired from being overused).
Nevertheless, CC spends much more time discussing what lazy writing means, and I agree completely with what he said about that.
Could be I'm being too hard on CC. His post about "lazy writing" looked to me essentially like a lengthy denial of the possibility that propositions about a piece of "writing" can refer to the text instead of the writing process, which if so seems too completely absurd to require rebuttal. But maybe I'm misreading him.
That happens sometimes.
They should have left her that way.
Wasn't aware of the telemovie thing, I always thought it was just that she wanted to move onto other things so with that and Hurley leaving opened the door for McFadden's return.
I really don't see how I did that. I was only referring to those specific examples. There are infinite adjectives used in analytical writing that can refer to the artist or the work. "Lazy" just isn't one of them.
Part of the problem is, it's like there's this salt shaker out there filled with critical adjectives and adverbs intended specifically for internet use, and people sprinkle them with little care and plenty of exuberance. "Lazy" is one such word.
"Hack" is another one that drives me completely bonkers. It's not a synonym for bad or untalented.
As far as using them figuratively, well that's fine. Except using a figurative meaning beyond a word's literal meaning in attempt to appeal to emotion is like the definition of loaded language, which redirects all the way back around to my initial point.
Anyway, this whole discussion has literally made my head explode. No really, there are bits and pieces everywhere, and I'm too lazy to pick them up.
Is this the Mitt Romney "corporations are people" thing?
No, it's an if I own it, its mine thing. If the Ford Motor Company wants to reintroduce the Bronco, using elements from the previous model, they aren't stealing because they own the name and designs for the Bronco.
Since you seem to have missed the point of the Romney reference, 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.
Oh I got it. But the reality is person A and person B are employees of Corporation C. The work they do is for the corporation not for themselves. If I rip off Stephen King by lifting passages from the Stand in my own work, its different than if I'm hired by Stephen King to write a new version of the Stand and I'm allowed to use material from the Stand.
Hey, John Fogerty was sued for stealing form himself.
Anything is possible.
Oh then you don't got it. Because that's totally irrelevant. Did you, for some reason, imagine that I was talking about legally actionable issues? Copyright? Employment? Corporations? Because I wasn't. But have fun with your strawman, I guess.
Well, that explains the ensuing epidemic of shapelessness.
That's not quite the same thing, though, is it?
Take a step back, Set.
What strawman? You asked if the question "Can a company rip itself off" was a reference to the "Mitt Romney 'corporations are people' thing". I said no and gave examples.
So, enlighten me, how does "Corporations are people" relate to "Can a company rip it's self off?"
All Star Trek products are part of the same franchise.
Again, I was never talking about companies or corporations. I was talking about individuals. An attempt to shift the discussion to a macro level where we don't see individuals anymore would be pointless, because:
How is what I said a strawman?
Your query was "is this a Mitt Romney 'corporations are people' thing?" which isn't about someone "ripping off" the work of another person. That's all I had to respond to. If you don't want to talk about corporations don't use a statement about corporations in response to a question about corporations.
Things like call backs and homages are a common tool for writers working in long running franchises or serial fiction. Its not a "bad thing" or a "ripoff".
Let's just agree it was lazy and call it a day. Some love it, some hate it, everyone is happy or miserable.
No, I can't agree that it was lazy. It's simply a tool used by writers.
Separate names with a comma.