Have you noticed how "Yesteryear" influnced Star Trek XI?

[Borgminister]

At the end of the day, there's really nothing new under the sun.

What O and K are to be lauded for is their extraordinarily successful reintroduction of the Star Trek universe to the fans and general public alike, in a very entertaining action / adventure movie.

 

[Overgeeked]

Cribbed means to steal or plagerize.

Incorrect.

crib v (cribbed / cribbing) 1. copy (another person's work) illicitly or without acknowledgement.

It's the "or without acknowledgement" part.

They can write a "bang up script" using bits from other sources. The two do not have to be mutally exclusive.

Partially true. They can write bang up parts of the script, but when parts are obviously taken from other sources, it is disingenuous to claim they are the only and original writers of the script. D.C. Fontana's name (at least) should be on the credits as a writer. Screenwriters have contributed less to movies and still been given a "& by line".

Using classic lines like "beam me up," "I'm a doctor not an X," etc are expected. But to take at least one entire scene, lifted nearly whole cloth from someone else is a bit much. Especially without citing the borrow, or crediting Fontana with having written that scene.

Other than the Yesteryear bit what else did they "crib." I know there were a few homages, but thats not a bad thing.

I don't mind the homages, references, and call outs that are in the film. Some of them are great.

 

[Nerys Myk]

crib v (cribbed / cribbing) 1. copy (another person's work) illicitly or without acknowledgement.

This is not stealing?

a. To plagiarize (an idea or answer, for example).
b. To steal

Verb 1. to copy (someone's work) dishonestly

Noun
1. a piece of writing stolen from elsewhere

Partially true. They can write bang up parts of the script, but when parts are obviously taken from other sources, it is disingenuous to claim they are the only and original writers of the script. D.C. Fontana's name (at least) should be on the credits as a writer. Screenwriters have contributed less to movies and still been given a "& by line

As I understand it, Screen writing credits are very complicated, Its possible to be responsible for an entire script and not be credited.

 

[indranee]

Do people not really understand how the writing of something like Star Trek works? It hardly theft, when you have rights to the entire franchise at your finger tips. If the writers lifted material from a non Trek source it would be different.

THANK YOU!

 

[indranee]

Indranee

My attitude: What of it? I don't like this film, it's riddled with plot holes, I've made no qualms about stating that opinion. If you don't like that, too bad. Welcome to the net. If you're referring to my reluctance to your request for personal info about me so you can pour over it before giving your stamp of approval so that I can have your permission to have an opinion, again, too bad.

Yesteryear in ST11: Here's one article that touches on it. The most relevant section being...

In a scene used directly in the new Star Trek movie, young Spock is severely taunted by his classmates for being half-human. They were bullying him and they were racist; he fought back with raw anger, similar to Rorschach in Watchmen (1986), when his mother is taunted by bullies. The young Spock portrayed in the movie was directly influenced by this cartoon.

This line from "Yesteryear" is nearly identical to one from ST11...

"What you do not yet understand, Spock, is that Vulcans do not lack emotion. It is only that ours is controlled. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience in full. We have emotions, but we deal with them… and do not let them control us."

This bit is in both the Sarek to Young Spock after the fight scene, and Old Spock to Kirk on the ice planet scene.

and how does that not count as an homage?

oh, and re your attitude: you're welcome to hate any movie or whatever you want. but to come here and tell us that you're an amateur writer (of course, that changed to "I get paid sometimes" under pressure) in order to prove your point doesn't do much. there are Trek novelists posting here, in case you did not know. there are also other "amateur" as well as "professional" writers around. it's a pretty level sandbox, dude, and your attitude doesn't cut it.

I don't have a problem with your dislike of the movie, but just because you're a writer (of any sort) does not make your opinion any worthier than anybody else's.

 

[pookha]

Indranee

My attitude: What of it? I don't like this film, it's riddled with plot holes, I've made no qualms about stating that opinion. If you don't like that, too bad. Welcome to the net. If you're referring to my reluctance to your request for personal info about me so you can pour over it before giving your stamp of approval so that I can have your permission to have an opinion, again, too bad.

Yesteryear in ST11: Here's one article that touches on it. The most relevant section being...

In a scene used directly in the new Star Trek movie, young Spock is severely taunted by his classmates for being half-human. They were bullying him and they were racist; he fought back with raw anger, similar to Rorschach in Watchmen (1986), when his mother is taunted by bullies. The young Spock portrayed in the movie was directly influenced by this cartoon.

This line from "Yesteryear" is nearly identical to one from ST11...

"What you do not yet understand, Spock, is that Vulcans do not lack emotion. It is only that ours is controlled. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience in full. We have emotions, but we deal with them… and do not let them control us."

This bit is in both the Sarek to Young Spock after the fight scene, and Old Spock to Kirk on the ice planet scene.

and it is similar to some other scenes in tos that described that vulcans indeed had emotions.
so i guess dc fontana stole from those episodes then.

i mean how else can you explain something so basic as the true emotional makeup of vulcans???

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

If Sarek had said, "Spock, we are Vulcans and we do not have emotions" people would be citing these episodes and screaming canon violation.

 

[Basil]

Or that they're hacks who blatantly swipe bits from other peoples' work. And TAS, come on. As pointed out above...



Think there's hate for VOY and ENT, most people simply ignored or didn't even know about TAS. Yeah, that shows respect.

Yeah, I have to confess not understanding the awe for writers who essentially cribbed things from someone else's work -- not just the idea, but nearly the same words. Is it the idea that they had actually seen TAS?

then I assume you don't have any awe for Gene Roddenberry? just checking because he "essentially cribbed" the basics of TOS from Forbidden Planet. he even gave it credit.

writers (and all artists) all over the world have derived inspiration (or, as you so delicately put it, "cribbed") from sources prior to their own creation. it's nothing new and it's not plagiarism.

now, if you can point to plagiarism in this case, I'd be interested.

Your question assumes a false dilemma because I can still have awe for Roddenberry in general even if I disagree with a specific action he did.

If your point is specific to Forbidden Planet, though, you're actually correct that it never impressed me that Roddenberry so obviously reworked Forbidden Planet into Star Trek without giving credit, nor that some of the writers, especially in the first season, aped the same source.

Creatively bankrupt as such actions seem, though, at least they were still a degree or two from cribbing from the very same franchise and, in this example, contributing so little that is original. Even Forbidden Planet looked to Shakespeare but had the good sense to turn it into something with its own unique identity, timeline, and universe.

The "nothing is original" mantra doesn't change the fact that I'm not impressed, nor understand why others are so.

Plagiarism is an academic offense; the commercial world only deals with copyright infringement. So, in the sense that Paramount may own TAS, DC Fontana may have signed away rights to whatever original contributions she made, or that an idea can't be copyrighted, there is nothing of legal dispute here. But I'm still not impressed.

 

[Overgeeked]

and how does that not count as an homage?

A homage is a something big or small that's an in joke or reference for the geeks who really, really know their lore. Admiral Archer's dog was an homage.

Taking an entire scene and large bits of dialog isn't an homage. That's cribbing.

oh, and re your attitude: you're welcome to hate any movie or whatever you want.

Again with the implication that I need your permission. What is it with you?

but to come here and tell us that you're an amateur writer (of course, that changed to "I get paid sometimes" under pressure) in order to prove your point doesn't do much.

I mentioned that I was a writer in response to being told I couldn't have an opinion about writing. I did not say that I was a writer to prove any point, in fact, look back, I said it in the context of "I understand how ideas get swapped around."

there are Trek novelists posting here, in case you did not know. there are also other "amateur" as well as "professional" writers around.

Which is great...

it's a pretty level sandbox, dude, and your attitude doesn't cut it.

And we're back to you implying I need your permission for my attitude.

I don't have a problem with your dislike of the movie, but just because you're a writer (of any sort) does not make your opinion any worthier than anybody else's.

Again, I'm not implying that it does. At the time, I was getting a really strong impression that I wasn't allowed to have an opinion, so I offered up that I was a writer, and again, look at the context. "I understand how ideas get swapped around, but..."

 

[tauntme]

Bad attitude = you won't be taken seriously. You're entitled to your opinion, but get ready for people to ignore you.

 

[Overgeeked]

^ Disagreeing does not = a bad attitude.

 

[indranee]

superiority complex = bad attitude.

I'm at work, but let me say this: no, you don't need my permission to post here. that much is obvious.

I wish you did, though

I hear you about your idea of the movie "cribbing" stuff. I disagree. let's part on that, shall we? I hope you like the next one better.

 

[number6]

Back OT: I am pleased that they chose to incorporate some plot points from Yesteryear into this film. Since we are looking at elements of Spock's childhood, it only makes sense to do so. Can you imagine the bile from fans if they depicted Spock's childhood differently??

I don't think it's plagarism. DC Fontana was responsible for a great deal of Spock's backstory. It only makes sense to examine some of this material and use it. Since Paramount essentially owns this material, the writers are free to use or ignore whatever they wish. Don't forget, DC wasn't just a writer, she was one of the producers of TAS (as well as Story Editor for TOS). A lot of what she wrote shaped the characters as we know them. If Overgeeked's assertions about plagarism were remotely credible, that same logic would have the estate of Gene Coon suing the shit out of Ronald Moore or anyone else that wrote a story about Klingons. What about Maurice Hurley's credit for every Borg episode??

These writers weren't freelance. They were hired by Paramount to work for Star Trek. They were on the production staff. It was their job to create the backstory for these characters.

If they were freelance writers, it would be different. That's why you see T'pol in ENT and not T'Pau. That's why Harlan Ellison lawyers up everytime someone uses the Guardian and David Gerrold gets to be a redshirt onscreen for "Trials and Tribbleations."

The differences are subtle, but these differences are something that every professional writer is acquainted with. Yes I ended a sentence with a preposition. I am only an amateur writer.

 

[Overgeeked]

I don't think it's plagarism. DC Fontana was responsible for a great deal of Spock's backstory. It only makes sense to examine some of this material and use it. Since Paramount essentially owns this material, the writers are free to use or ignore whatever they wish. Don't forget, DC wasn't just a writer, she was one of the producers of TAS (as well as Story Editor for TOS). A lot of what she wrote shaped the characters as we know them.

If Overgeeked's assertions about plagarism were remotely credible...

I never said plagiarism. Ever.

that same logic would have the estate of Gene Coon suing the shit out of Ronald Moore or anyone else that wrote a story about Klingons.

It's a shared world, owned by Paramount. They hold the copyrights and trademarks. It's theirs to do with as they please. By definition it can't be stealing (illegal) when Paramount does it. When someone else (other than Paramount) uses the word "Klingon" it's a trademark violation. Paramount can sue, if they want.

What about Maurice Hurley's credit for every Borg episode??

There is a huge difference between someone who created an alien species who're then used by others later, and using an entire scene, with costuming and dialog.

These writers weren't freelance. They were hired by Paramount to work for Star Trek. They were on the production staff. It was their job to create the backstory for these characters.

You're right, they're know as workers-for-hire, writing under a work-for-hire contract. They get the money, Paramount gets all the rights.

That's why Harlan Ellison lawyers up everytime someone uses the Guardian

Harlan's just special.

Yes I ended a sentence with a preposition. I am only an amateur writer.

Funny. You should read Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies, that whole ending a sentence with a preposition bit was just Strunk & White trying to keep us down.

 

[number6]

The dialog isn't exactly the same, though. Sure they copied elements of the scene from Yesteryear, but that is clearly an homage and not theft.
It's also now officially canon.
I don't think it indicates a lack of creativity, in fact the opposite: They figured out how to incorporate these decidedly important elements of Spock's childhood into the film, while paying homage to a much loved and highly noted episode of the animated series. I applaud that attention to detail and how it honors the original.

Tomayyto/tomahhto I guess.

 

[Overgeeked]

The dialog isn't exactly the same, though. Sure they copied elements of the scene from Yesteryear, but that is clearly an homage and not theft.

I never said theft, either.

 

[number6]

Or that they're hacks who blatantly swipe bits from other peoples' work.

There is a huge difference between "this inspired me", "it's a similar idea to...", "it's the same premise as X, but here's how it's different...", and huge pieces lifted, whole cloth, from work someone else did.

I am an amateur writer, I know a lot about how people exchange ideas [...]

But, to use entire scenes straight out of someone else's work, that's bullshit.

I said cribbed. Not theft, not stealing, not plagiarism.

From Miriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry:
2crib
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
cribbed; crib·bing
Date:
1605
transitive verb
1: confine, cramp
2: to provide with or put into a crib ; especially : to line or support with a framework of timber
3: pilfer, steal ; especially : plagiarize
intransitive verb
1 a: steal, plagiarize b: to use a crib : cheat
2: to have the vice of cribbing
— crib·ber noun

You're right. You never said "theft." The intent is the same, but if you want to continue arguing semantics...

 

[Overgeeked]

That's awesome for you. I'm not using that dictionary. I already quoted up thread the definition from my dictionary that I go by. And I emphasized the portion that I was using it to imply.

Creative clipping that. The full rest of that sentence and the next was me explaining away the ST11 writer's use of other bits from other people as no big deal.

So yes, I'll argue as long as I have to so that you will stop changing around what I've said.

And arguing semantics is kind of a hobby.

 

[number6]

That's awesome for you. I'm not using that dictionary. I already quoted up thread the definition from my dictionary that I go by. And I emphasized the portion that I was using it to imply.

Sooo.. Like the word, but not the meaning of it...got it.

And arguing semantics is kind of a hobby.

Yeah I noticed.

That's awesome for you.

 

[pookha]

getting back to yesteryear..
the yesteryear garb is not the same. the only thing the ones in the movie and yesteryear have in common is the sash. otherwise they are both very different.

i still know how a basic description of the emotional aspect of vulcans cant help but be familar since it comes down to that : vulcans have emotions , more powerful then humans. that they have to control them or otherwise be over whelmed by them.

as i said earlier this was introduced long befoere yesteryear and has been stated numerous times since then.