That would never have made any sense in-universe in the way Kirk or Spock sacrificing themselves in the warp core to save the Enterprise in a conflict with Khan does.
Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.
- Thread starter Cara007
- Start date
That would never have made any sense in-universe in the way Kirk or Spock sacrificing themselves in the warp core to save the Enterprise in a conflict with Khan does.
Aside from the glass wall I think it was virtually the same scene. Data/Spock sacrificing himself for Picard/Kirk when really its the Captain who should be giving up his life for his crew/the Federation. Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands. And Both Spock and Data (in the comics/books) returned from the dead after storing their soul somewhere safe. Could it be any more similar?
I don't know why this is so fucking hard to understand.
The main theme that binds nuTrek all together is that Kirk and Spock have a shared destiny. It's a different universe, and they're different people, but they're still two halves of the same whole.
Orci and Abrams were showing that those two haves could both literally and figuratively be flipped around and the whole would still be the same and net similar outcomes.
So, no, it's nothing like Picard and Data.
The main theme that binds nuTrek all together is that Kirk and Spock have a shared destiny. It's a different universe, and they're different people, but they're still two halves of the same whole.
Orci and Abrams were showing that those two haves could both literally and figuratively be flipped around and the whole would still be the same and net similar outcomes.
So, no, it's nothing like Picard and Data.
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
And to some people it fulfills the definition of smart callback-ing.
Aside from the glass wall I think it was virtually the same scene. Data/Spock sacrificing himself for Picard/Kirk when really its the Captain who should be giving up his life for his crew/the Federation. Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands. And Both Spock and Data (in the comics/books) returned from the dead after storing their soul somewhere safe. Could it be any more similar?
The Katra thing has always been a criticism against Nemesis.
I'm not saying it has the same feeling as in TWOK but essentially NEM has the same plot at TWOK in those final scenes.
And I don't believe Picard is Data's best friend or even in his top 3 buddies and certainly Data isn't close to being Picard's best friend. However they are a top team under fire. So the feeling you get in TWOK is a whole lot different than in NEM but you still feel the loss.
However in nuTrek I think they missed a trick. When Kirk died I didn't even think he and Spock were friends. In TWOK and TOS there was no doubt. I think they could have made nuKirk and nuSpock friends from the beginning of STID and that would have explained the Khaaaannn scream. I'm just not convinced with the flip around and the destiny thing. I would have liked to though.
I don't know why people are complaining that Data could be resurrected. I don't think he ever should have been killed off in the first place. Sure its copying but in the end who cares if you get what you want.Aside from the glass wall I think it was virtually the same scene. Data/Spock sacrificing himself for Picard/Kirk when really its the Captain who should be giving up his life for his crew/the Federation. Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands. And Both Spock and Data (in the comics/books) returned from the dead after storing their soul somewhere safe. Could it be any more similar?
The Katra thing has always been a criticism against Nemesis.
I'm not saying it has the same feeling as in TWOK but essentially NEM has the same plot at TWOK in those final scenes.
And I don't believe Picard is Data's best friend or even in his top 3 buddies and certainly Data isn't close to being Picard's best friend. However they are a top team under fire. So the feeling you get in TWOK is a whole lot different than in NEM but you still feel the loss.
However in nuTrek I think they missed a trick. When Kirk died I didn't even think he and Spock were friends. In TWOK and TOS there was no doubt. I think they could have made nuKirk and nuSpock friends from the beginning of STID and that would have explained the Khaaaannn scream. I'm just not convinced with the way they did the flip around and the destiny thing. I would have liked to though.
I don't know why people are complaining that Data could be resurrected. I don't think he ever should have been killed off in the first place. Sure its copying but in the end who cares if you get what you want.Aside from the glass wall I think it was virtually the same scene. Data/Spock sacrificing himself for Picard/Kirk when really its the Captain who should be giving up his life for his crew/the Federation. Both Spock and Data took the decision out of their Captain's hands. And Both Spock and Data (in the comics/books) returned from the dead after storing their soul somewhere safe. Could it be any more similar?
The Katra thing has always been a criticism against Nemesis.
Simply because they copied the whole thing. If they ever wanted to get Data back in another film, they should have made an effort to be more original.
When Kirk died I didn't even think he and Spock were friends. In TWOK and TOS there was no doubt. I think they could have made nuKirk and nuSpock friends from the beginning of STID and that would have explained the Khaaaannn scream. I'm just not convinced with the flip around and the destiny thing. I would have liked to though.
I think two things cemented that Kirk and Spock were friends in Star Trek Into Darkness: Kirk not allowing Spock to die on Nibiru and that Kirk wanted Spock reinstated as his first officer when asking for his command back (and Spock accepted). I think Spock felt the same way but simply didn't know how to show it.
Reusing the climax of TWOK and just changing the two characters fulfills my definition of cheap, exploitive imitation.
Which was really obviously what Set Harth was saying. Why this (or "lazy writing" for that matter) should have been the occasion of multiple thousand-word screeds I really have no idea.
That they bickered like an old married couple cemented it for me. And Kirk's long-suffering "of course you do" when Spock informed him, immediately after accepting his assignment back, that he "must strongly object to our mission parameters"When Kirk died I didn't even think he and Spock were friends. In TWOK and TOS there was no doubt. I think they could have made nuKirk and nuSpock friends from the beginning of STID and that would have explained the Khaaaannn scream. I'm just not convinced with the flip around and the destiny thing. I would have liked to though.
I think two things cemented that Kirk and Spock were friends in Star Trek Into Darkness: Kirk not allowing Spock to die on Nibiru and that Kirk wanted Spock reinstated as his first officer when asking for his command back (and Spock accepted). I think Spock felt the same way but simply didn't know how to show it.
Perhaps, but I did included an appropriate definition from Merriam-Webster and one from Oxford Dictionaries as well.
They were clearly exploiting prior Trek. Not necessarily in a nasty or unfair way I'll grant you, but that isn't strictly required. The attempt at cleverness involves in large part how similar the two scenes are and the original work was made by someone else. I agree that "rip-off" is a harsh sounding term. But I don't see a show stopper, even if we restrict ourselves to less "hep" and "with-it" definition sources.
However I am not sure why you object to the TheFreeDictionary meaning. A number of posters seem to accept that the term "rip-off" can be applied to stories etc. The main difficulty seems to be appreciating how it can be used within a franchise and that has been covered.
I think Kirk would have tried to save any member of his crew and the bit about Spock leaving Kirk behind if their positions were reversed seems to show how tenuous their relationship still was. Moreover why wouldn't Kirk want, potentially at least, the best first officer in the fleet?
Weren't you recently complaining about the use of unfortunate stereotypes.
Kirk likely wouldn't have put any other member of his crew in that position because he doesn't trust them like he trusts Spock. Spock leaving Kirk behind says nothing about how he feels about him, logic would dictate he do his duty and follow the Prime Directive.
This Spock is a decade younger than the Spock we see in TOS, I think it would be a reach to call him the best first officer in the Fleet just yet. Enterprise is likely his first posting as an XO based on his age.
Trust doesn't have to mean they're friends, and Kirk had to ask McCoy what Spock would do (a "rhetorical" question for the benefit of the audience, maybe you would suggest
). Re Spock as first officer, I did say "potentially at least". To a degree I was kidding of course, but Kirk may just have seen something in Spock that he thought showed promise (or better the devil you know!).
I thought that I explained clearly what I found objectionable about TheFreeDictionary definition, but I'll try again. The problem area is (I've omitted the part that isn't problematic):They were clearly exploiting prior Trek. Not necessarily in a nasty or unfair way I'll grant you, but that isn't strictly required. The attempt at cleverness involves in large part how similar the two scenes are and the original work was made by someone else. I agree that "rip-off" is a harsh sounding term. But I don't see a show stopper, even if we restrict ourselves to less "hep" and "with-it" definition sources.
However I am not sure why you object to the TheFreeDictionary meaning. A number of posters seem to accept that the term "rip-off" can be applied to stories etc. The main difficulty seems to be appreciating how it can be used within a franchise and that has been covered.
Dictionary definitions, especially terse ones, rarely suffice to precisely nail the meaning of a word, and that goes for M-W, too. OED is something that I generally find to be better (i.e. more accurate) than M-W, but OED is behind a paywall, and I don't even have my copy where I am.
Often, representative examples can go a long way to filling the gap.
Here are three examples from film or TV, each of which that I consider either to be a rip-off or to be closer to being a rip-off than Kirk's death scene in STID.
1. The Terminators. Woe to those thinking that they are about to watch the chapter that they never heard of in that other franchise. The Asylum? 'Nuff said. Rip-off.
This example illustrates the meaning of the criterion that the imitation is being done by someone else. The mode of exploitation is to infringe, something that is decidedly absent in the STID/TWOK situation.
2. TOS: "Balance of Terror". It's virtually a beat-for-beat adaptation of The Enemy Below. Rip-off? Probably depends on who you ask. I think that the accusation of it being a rip-off has a pretty strong case, and the defense is not helped by the fact that no credit was assigned for the original story. Of course, the defense might argue that no credit was assigned because the story was not lifted. However, if you believe the widely disseminated allegation that Paul Schneider confessed to Harlan Ellison what he'd done, then it's really open and shut, although in rebuttal the defense might ask why no case was ever brought.
3. Star Wars (1977) uses dialog adapted from The Dam Busters (1955). First of all, the tactics of the Death Star trench run parallel those employed in the real world attacks of Operation Chastise. Here is a clip of the first attack in the 1955 film. The lifted dialog occurs at about 0:18.
"How many guns do you think there are, Trevor?"
"I say there's about ten guns. Some in the fields and some in the towers."
Rip-off? No, it's homage. Again, no infringement is intended. However, it is lifted from another source."I say there's about ten guns. Some in the fields and some in the towers."
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRIsjJFRNo[/yt]
It's also worth noting that in rip-offs there are different sets of victims. Sometimes it's the consumer being ripped-off, others it's inventors/authors who are denied royalties, and in some cases it's both. It's really hard for me to see how consumers are being harmed in examples 2 and 3, unless they are being robbed of information that might be beneficial to their consumption or that might influence their decision to consume.
So what? Yes, it means anything that imitates and borrows from other things can be called a rip-off. How is that the end of the world*? If you disagree with a specific instance of its usage, what not just say so and leave it that? It's not an allegation of mortal sin or criminality or eeeevil or something. You're not going to be able to rule out all use of the term just because you happen not to like it.
(* EDIT: Yes, for instance, "Balance of Terror" can be fairly called to some extent a rip-off of The Enemy Below. That doesn't affect enjoyment of it; it just happens in fact to be a good rip-off of The Enemy Below. What need would there be to spend multiple thousands of words in mortal combat against a minor semantic choice?)
I thought that I explained clearly what I found objectionable about TheFreeDictionary definition, but I'll try again. The problem area is (I've omitted the part that isn't problematic):They were clearly exploiting prior Trek. Not necessarily in a nasty or unfair way I'll grant you, but that isn't strictly required. The attempt at cleverness involves in large part how similar the two scenes are and the original work was made by someone else. I agree that "rip-off" is a harsh sounding term. But I don't see a show stopper, even if we restrict ourselves to less "hep" and "with-it" definition sources.
However I am not sure why you object to the TheFreeDictionary meaning. A number of posters seem to accept that the term "rip-off" can be applied to stories etc. The main difficulty seems to be appreciating how it can be used within a franchise and that has been covered.
The problem is that that covers anything at all that is imitative. For example, it would, if taken literally at face value, require us to categorize all cover versions of a song as rip-offs. That's simply wrong.
Thanks for your efforts. It's just that it does seem like you are still going a little too far down the legal/corporate road than I feel is required. All three definitions I provided kind of assume the negative connotations that you are hankering after but in a less strict way. They seem less interested in courtrooms or who is infringed against and more in: "how do we think this work compares to that work and did they build on it, or just produce something 'clever' in an obvious way." etc.
As far as homages go, I tend to think they should be a brief show of respect for the original without actually taking it out to dinner and a movie. To me the reactor scene is the latter rather than the former. Maybe I have things wrong, but they are not just saying "thanks, that was great", they are actually making their own thing out of the original. To me that seems to being going too far to still be termed a homage.
You're welcome.I thought that I explained clearly what I found objectionable about TheFreeDictionary definition, but I'll try again. The problem area is (I've omitted the part that isn't problematic):They were clearly exploiting prior Trek. Not necessarily in a nasty or unfair way I'll grant you, but that isn't strictly required. The attempt at cleverness involves in large part how similar the two scenes are and the original work was made by someone else. I agree that "rip-off" is a harsh sounding term. But I don't see a show stopper, even if we restrict ourselves to less "hep" and "with-it" definition sources.
However I am not sure why you object to the TheFreeDictionary meaning. A number of posters seem to accept that the term "rip-off" can be applied to stories etc. The main difficulty seems to be appreciating how it can be used within a franchise and that has been covered.The problem is that that covers anything at all that is imitative. For example, it would, if taken literally at face value, require us to categorize all cover versions of a song as rip-offs. That's simply wrong.
Thanks for your efforts.
I agree that there are too many elements borrowed from Spock's death scene for Kirk's death scene in STID to be just an homage. (When Lucas lifted and straightforwardly adapted those lines from The Dam Busters, it was evidently just those two lines back-to-back, and then on to other things.) That's why I've never called the STID scene just an homage, and why I agree with CorporalClegg that, in addition to being an homage, mirroring must have been the intent in its own right. I even proposed an explication of STID based on that assumption upthread, though of course the intended meaning may be much simpler or entirely different.It's just that it does seem like you are still going a little too far down the legal/corporate road than I feel is required. All three definitions I provided kind of assume the negative connotations that you are hankering after but in a less strict way. They seem less interested in courtrooms or who is infringed against and more in: "how do we think this work compares to that work and did they build on it, or just produce something 'clever' in an obvious way." etc.
As far as homages go, I tend to think they should be a brief show of respect for the original without actually taking it out to dinner and a movie. To me the reactor scene is the latter rather than the former. Maybe I have things wrong, but they are not just saying "thanks, that was great", they are actually making their own thing out of the original. To me that seems to being going too far to still be termed a homage.
I answered that question in the next two sentences, which you've omitted. For my example which illustrated my point, you substituted your own which doesn't. That makes me a sad panda.
Based on his last reply, I think that UFO, whom I was addressing (incidentally because he said he still had some issues with what I had said previously), understood what I was getting at; in fact, I think there had simply been some confusion regarding exactly what I was objecting to.
That's quite an insinuation about my motives. It's groundless speculation. And, why are you questioning why I didn't post this, that, or the other thing, instead of what I posted?
Ditto.
Although I don't feel obliged to say why I posted this or that, more than simply beeping once to agree or twice to disagree is actually discussing (relevant because this is a discussion board), right?
With an assertion that it is "simply wrong" for the term "rip-off" to be able to have the semantic function in the language that it very plainly has. That answer, and your entire approach to the semantics of the question, is not even wrong.
It's a "groundless" "insinuation" to speculate that you're trying to rule out the usage of a term you dislike when you've spent thousands of words in this thread explicitly and by your own admission attempting to do just that?
I mean, maybe I'm just being a wet blanket. It just seems like you're way overreacting to the term and that your apparent belief that you can make an objective or semi-objective case for ruling out its use looks fundamentally misguided.
Last edited:
Similar threads
