D'oh! I apologize for the thread title typo. A little help, mods? 
This obviously isn't the most pressing issue facing Earth today, but I do feel that it's artistically offensive to make a sequel film to Lewis Carrol's "Alice and Wonderland" and steal his title. I love the public domain, and don't care what Lewis' estate might think or anything like that, but the current movie should have been given a different title.
I know that they probably didn't do that in order to avoid confusing audiences, and if it were my money on the line I don't know what I'd do, but I'm talking philosophically here.
Same goes for Trek XI. It's fine to call stuff like TNG "Star Trek" informally, because it's understood that one is referring to a franchise and that TNG itself is not titled simply "Star Trek." In this case, you could argue that the Paramount ownership makes Trek XI's title less odious, but still, the only single piece of media that deserves to be called "Star Trek" is the show Roddenberry created.
One could perhaps bring a similar complaint against Sherlock Holmes the movie. True, Doyle never called any single work "Sherlock Holmes", but that is the universal if unofficial title of his sixty-story collection. And true, there were three movies titled "Sherlock Holmes" before last year's, but most had enough class as to give them titles like "Sherlock Holmes in...", or, even better, to emulate the original stories by giving them titles without Holmes' name: "The Sever-Per-Cent Solution", "Murder by Decree", etc.
Sigh. Whatever happened to artistic integrity? (And yes, I do ask that with tongue-halfway-in-cheek.)
This obviously isn't the most pressing issue facing Earth today, but I do feel that it's artistically offensive to make a sequel film to Lewis Carrol's "Alice and Wonderland" and steal his title. I love the public domain, and don't care what Lewis' estate might think or anything like that, but the current movie should have been given a different title.
I know that they probably didn't do that in order to avoid confusing audiences, and if it were my money on the line I don't know what I'd do, but I'm talking philosophically here.
Same goes for Trek XI. It's fine to call stuff like TNG "Star Trek" informally, because it's understood that one is referring to a franchise and that TNG itself is not titled simply "Star Trek." In this case, you could argue that the Paramount ownership makes Trek XI's title less odious, but still, the only single piece of media that deserves to be called "Star Trek" is the show Roddenberry created.
One could perhaps bring a similar complaint against Sherlock Holmes the movie. True, Doyle never called any single work "Sherlock Holmes", but that is the universal if unofficial title of his sixty-story collection. And true, there were three movies titled "Sherlock Holmes" before last year's, but most had enough class as to give them titles like "Sherlock Holmes in...", or, even better, to emulate the original stories by giving them titles without Holmes' name: "The Sever-Per-Cent Solution", "Murder by Decree", etc.
Sigh. Whatever happened to artistic integrity? (And yes, I do ask that with tongue-halfway-in-cheek.)
