Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Lance, May 26, 2013.
There's no such thing as an original story.
Right, but you know what Anticitizen meant.
Once again, lowering the bar to protect the new series from any possible negative evaluation.
There's no such thing as art. It's all about making money.
There's nothing original. Everyone is a hack.
The old stuff was terrible! It's no worse than the original!
Audiences are stupid and they demand stupid movies.
Fans have no property rights. The new owners can do anything they please. You have NO right to complain about anything! Just shut up and hand them your money.
NOTE: And originality is not interesting as an ontological property, but rather as an epistemic property. What is relevantly original is relative to the horizon of expectations of the audience. You don't have to produce something ontologically NEW to do something clever, worthwhile, imaginative, and insightful.
I know what he meant. It's the same tired argument that's been repeated over and over again since Paramount first announce nuTrek. It completely ignores the fact that any and every Star Trek story, no matter how verbose, obtuse, or abstract, someone could hope to come up with is ultimately derivative of something else.
So why not try for the path of least resistance?
Greg Cox's King Arthur example is perfect. In the last 1500 years, how many different versions of that story have been created? It's probably impossible to know. Everyone is unique in its own way and brings something new to the table. However, they are all ultimately about the same guy. They started with him, and over time a creepy wizard was added, and then the woman-stealing BFF, and then the sword, and then the evil half sister, and so on and so forth.
It's how stories work. Sure, every once and a while you get a Tristan and Isolde, but they can't happen unless the main story is retold and retold with the familiar faces at the center.
I'm not sure where I said this or even implied it. More importantly, what does it have to do with the Borg?
I didn't say this either. (Non sequitur much?) In any case, the two are mutually exclusive. They always have been.
Shakespeare wrote his place because he needed to eat ... err drink. Michelangelo got paid a good chunk of change for painting the Sistine Chapel--not as much as he'd asked the Pope for, I might add.
People can create art for the sole purpose of making a profit off of it. This includes everyone to lowly street performers, to hot shot film directors. Again, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.
Another non sequitur I never wrote.
Except, that's not the argument.
The argument is, if the only reason a person doesn't like something is because of X, Y, and, Z, then, if the thing he does like also consists of X, Y, and Z, he's a hypocrite.
It's a way of pointing out that most of the people who "hate" nuTrek have an agenda and have really already made up their minds.
Are you just making shit up now?
You mean like a good Borg story?
Screw the Borg. Bring back the space hippies!
How about Borgified Space Hippies?
Zombie hippies from space? Seth MacFarlane must direct.
They could but I don't think they will. I think we'll see Klingon baddies in the next film, probably Kor, Kang or Koloth.
But nobody knows them! And you can ONLY use characters that everyone knows. Otherwise you confuse the audience!
Resistance is futile...
Separate names with a comma.