And with a dog in a Starfleet uniform named Spocky.
Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.
- Thread starter Cara007
- Start date
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.
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.
I know everyone has different tastes, just having a bit of fun with MakeshiftPython's statement.
Even moreso when I realized it was covered under the free video rental the cable company gave me. I wanted to get it watched, retain enough of the story to be able to talk about it, and never have to worry about paying for it again. Therefore, I watched it three times.
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.
Thankfully, I got over it.
Personally, I'd love a new TV series as long as it wasn't anything to do with the Abrams stuff (or the actors involved in it). Set it in the 25th century at the earliest, and take it from there.
In the meantime, I'm behind on some of my fanfic reading...
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:
UHURA (at communications station, listening to earpiece): City reports that the emergency beaming protocol thankfully minimized casualties.
---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.
Instead of attempting to use inapplicable (and not to mention, loaded) language such as theft and rip-off, why not simply say that Kirk's death scene in STID was too much a repetition of Spock's death scene in TWOK for your own taste, score an inarguable point, be done with it, and move on?
---
Exactly. I can't agree that it was lazy, either.
Personally, I think that CorporalClegg made a totally compelling case that Kirk's death scene was an adaptation of Spock's death scene and that it was not lazy writing. Furthermore, in the absence of something like a request for arbitration or a lawsuit, I have no reason to suspect that it even rises to the level of something for which credit to the writers of TWOK should have been assigned.
I think that, if people would simply say that they don't like it and leave it at that, instead of attempting to find objective justifications for their opinions where none exist, then they would find that no one could argue with what they are saying. There's nothing wrong with not liking something, or finding it too this or too that for your own tastes; the problem that some of us are having is simply when people try to say that it is objectively X, when we don't think that it is objectively X.
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.
FFS, if the moviemakers are going to hit the audience over the head with a Twin Towers reminder, they should have had some kind of realistic response to it onscreen. From what I recall watching the news 12 years ago, people in the immediate vicinity didn't just carry on with their shopping and appointments - they got the hell out of there, and there were all sorts of emergency personnel around.
Good to see that you and I agree, and that somebody else likes this show. As I've argued before, I think that the animation style of Star Trek: Aurora should be taken into consideration when (and if) an official animated series (standard pen-and-ink cell animation or CGI) is ever made; I'd hate to see the Pixar style used, or the semi-Pixar style of Star Wars: The Clone Wars used (this goes double for the style of Green Lantern: The Animated Series.)
I'd like that, too, provided they can find a new formula for the show. For me, Voyager was a huge step backwards, and Enterprise was nothing new or fresh, except that last season.
I'm still in love with the DS9 characters.
That's a very real possibility.
Coach Comet said:
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:
What are two different things? People and corporations? Because that's the whole point.
North Pole Myk said:
They don't exist in a vacuum, and are by no means difficult to understand in context. The only reason to take them out of context would be an ultimately useless "let's talk about corporations so I can get the focus off of the behavior of writers" tactic.
Last edited:
Of course he's not, Set. You laid full claim to that office yourself, all the way back here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
and
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.
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:
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:
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.
Maybe the writers were merely sending a valentine to the old fans and giving something new to the new fans.
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.
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.
Similar threads
