And with a dog in a Starfleet uniform named Spocky.
Animated I might be interested in. Mainly cause it opens the door to do a lot of things and tell stories that would limited, to costly, or physcially impossible to do with live action.I have trouble mustering up the interest to read a Trek comic or novel anymore.
You might not, I do, and I want to see what happens in next month's issue. That's why I have a pullbox with Star Trek comics in it. And those comics are amazing.
So, just the movies, huh? Not even an animated show with cute Starfleet officers?![]()
Aurora is one of the better fan productions out there. Good animation, so far good stories, and I like the characters. Also, I think the lag between episodes and their parts actually helps keep my interest in it; it isn't all out there at once and left to get stall.
It wasn't on a weekend; it was mid-week. And I'm stingy when renting videos; I figure if I'm paying for something I don't get to keep, I want as much use of it as possible.Three times in a single weekend.Speak for yourself. I had to force myself to watch it.
I know everyone has different tastes, just having a bit of fun with MakeshiftPython's statement.
I went through a whole year of never watching any Trek on TV, never reading any of the books, never touching any fanfic... in fact, one day I stood in front of my bookshelf and wondered why I had all this stuff cluttering up my house.It isn't whether it's feasible or not. It's whether or not I want to really revisit the universe again on a weekly basis? As much as I love Star Trek, the answer for me is no.Except theatrical films cannot be anywhere near as inventive and flexible as a tv series, despite a bigger budget. I think Trek TV is still feasible. That last season of ENT proved it could still be done as long as you had passionate writers behind it.
I have trouble mustering up the interest to read a Trek comic or novel anymore.
I think that whether characters in the film reacted appropriately to the crash of the Vengeance and whether the film set the right tone for it are distinct issues from whether there should have been something akin to a truther subplot. I don't think it's unreasonable to find it implausible that there wasn't greater evidence of a starship having crashed into the city, rippling through the crowds and traffic seen on the way to and during the fistfight atop the air-truck. Even if they were only at best half-serious when doing so, some posters have raised the issue before that perhaps a depiction of emergency transporters in operation might have been appropriate. My suggestion is a verbal reference:Kirk may have foiled the truther plot, but then you have the whole thing with Khan crashing into San Fransisco reflecting the 9/11 tragedy, with none of the characters watching in horror because the film is way too concerned with "we gotta get Khan". It just feels insensitive. It would have gone a long way just to show the characters look at the viewscreen for a minute in horror, not saying a word. This is where I give ST09 points for actually handling the destruction of Vulcan much more tastefully, and even that already worked as a 9/11 attack allegory.
Theft is theft.
But the situation that occurred in reality is not the one that you were attempting to discuss. The individuals who wrote STID did not write it outside a legal relationship with the corporation that owns the intellectual property of Star Trek. Further, I am not aware of, say, any WGA arbitration or any lawsuits filed over failure to assign credit where credit was due or failure to secure IP rights as necessary. The reality is that the word theft doesn't apply, full stop.All Star Trek products are part of the same franchise.What strawman?
We know.
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:
Set Harth said:I'm talking about a person copying or ripping off the work of another person.
Let's just agree it was lazy and call it a day. Some love it, some hate it, everyone is happy or miserable.
Exactly. I can't agree that it was lazy, either.No, I can't agree that it was lazy. It's simply a tool used by writers.
I never mentioned emergency transporters, but I was damn well 100% completely serious about my complaint that a huge starship smashing into the city didn't draw so much as a blink from people just a couple of blocks away. I noticed that somebody gasped when nuSpock smashed through the glass door/window/whatever when he was chasing nuKhan, but the individual who noticed that should also have noticed the incredible destruction that occurred such a short time before, such a short distance away.I think that whether characters in the film reacted appropriately to the crash of the Vengeance and whether the film set the right tone for it are distinct issues from whether there should have been something akin to a truther subplot. I don't think it's unreasonable to find it implausible that there wasn't greater evidence of a starship having crashed into the city, rippling through the crowds and traffic seen on the way to and during the fistfight atop the air-truck. Even if they were only at best half-serious when doing so, some posters have raised the issue before that perhaps a depiction of emergency transporters in operation might have been appropriate. My suggestion is a verbal reference:Kirk may have foiled the truther plot, but then you have the whole thing with Khan crashing into San Fransisco reflecting the 9/11 tragedy, with none of the characters watching in horror because the film is way too concerned with "we gotta get Khan". It just feels insensitive. It would have gone a long way just to show the characters look at the viewscreen for a minute in horror, not saying a word. This is where I give ST09 points for actually handling the destruction of Vulcan much more tastefully, and even that already worked as a 9/11 attack allegory.
UHURA (at communications station, listening to earpiece): City reports that the emergency beaming protocol thankfully minimized casualties.---
Aurora is one of the better fan productions out there. Good animation, so far good stories, and I like the characters. Also, I think the lag between episodes and their parts actually helps keep my interest in it; it isn't all out there at once and left to get stall.
If I ever have fun with Trek again, it will not be on he big screen but the small one. Here's hoping for that day.
That is the biggest problem though. Star Trek hasn't given me characters I want too follow since early in TNG's run, that's close to 25 years.
Dramatically, visually and conceptually Trek has been passed by.
Coach Comet said:The individuals who wrote STID did not write it outside a legal relationship with the corporation that owns the intellectual property of Star Trek.
North Pole Myk said:No it does't as they are two different things.
North Pole Myk said:I quoted the posts in question for a reason. That reason being I was focusing on them and their content.
Of course he's not, Set. You laid full claim to that office yourself, all the way back here:Coach Comet said: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?
[...]
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.
Coach Comet said: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?
North Pole Myk said:No it does't as they are two different things.
What are two different things? People and corporations? Because that's the whole point.
Of course he's not, Set. You laid full claim to that office yourself, all the way back here: ...But I don't think you're the globally acknowledged arbiter of the meaning of "ripoff"...
...are you?
Instead of attempting to use inapplicable (and not to mention, loaded) language such as theft and rip-off, ...
andThat's a tough one. Maybe if a franchise used more than one writer over the years?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 ?
... 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.
Comments to PM, please.
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:It seems to me, based on the definitions that I quoted above
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.)Merriam-Webster's definition of rip-off said:: 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
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.![]()
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.![]()
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!")
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.