[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

The original idea stemmed from certain quarters complaints that the new film took too much from 'Star Wars' and that's not popular with them. The counter to that is merely that 'Star Trek' is no more fully original itself because it's used many, many other sources over the years.

The simple fact is in that context one man's 'inspiration' is another's 'rip-off' - same thing, different POV only.

So, we can either embrace the fact that Star Trek 'uses' these things in it's own way or be annoyed over it. Personally it doesn't annoy me when they do it, but it does - as far as I'm concerned - invalidate any particular criticisms that there's a Star Wars element here and there.

Unless, of course, it's sour grapes that Star Trek found itself in the position of having to take a couple of cues from a vastly successful film in order to help get itself back on track.

Well told.

[chator]

Originally Posted by kevin

The original idea stemmed from certain quarters complaints that the new film took too much from 'Star Wars' and that's not popular with them. The counter to that is merely that 'Star Trek' is no more fully original itself because it's used many, many other sources over the years.

The simple fact is in that context one man's 'inspiration' is another's 'rip-off' - same thing, different POV only.

So, we can either embrace the fact that Star Trek 'uses' these things in it's own way or be annoyed over it. Personally it doesn't annoy me when they do it, but it does - as far as I'm concerned - invalidate any particular criticisms that there's a Star Wars element here and there.

Unless, of course, it's sour grapes that Star Trek found itself in the position of having to take a couple of cues from a vastly successful film in order to help get itself back on track.

For me, a rip-off is when credit isn't given to the original source, sort of like plagerism, when you use an author's words without giving him credit. If you change something slightly in the wording, it's no longer a rip-off, only inspiration.

So when Data is Sherlock Holmes, or Picard is Dixon Hill, that is not rip-off, only inspiration. Also, when we have so many Voyager storylines based on Freudian ideas, or so many Next Generation storylines based on Orignal Series episodes and characters, that is also inspiration, not rip-off. Unless you want to accuse Trek of ripping itself off.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by chator

For me, a rip-off is when credit isn't given to the original source, sort of like plagerism, when you use an author's words without giving him credit. If you change something slightly in the wording, it's no longer a rip-off, only inspiration.

So when Data is Sherlock Holmes, or Picard is Dixon Hill, that is not rip-off, only inspiration. Also, when we have so many Voyager storylines based on Freudian ideas, or so many Next Generation storylines based on Orignal Series episodes and characters, that is also inspiration, not rip-off. Unless you want to accuse Trek of ripping itself off.

I've actually made that accusation before anyway and I fully stand by it. It's not a complaint really, I just think it's reasonable to acknowledge.

TMP is a variation of 'Changling', Nemesis is a variation of TWOK, and if I spent enough time looking them up, there would probably be more instances, not counting the several instances that TOS used the same ending of the appearance of a 'higher entity' to solve the storyline they had written themselves into ('Charlie X', 'Errand of Mercy' and 'The Squire of Gothos' off the top of my head).

Anyway, is any of this really fatal in terms of ability in enjoying Star Trek? No*, of course not.

I simply accept they've done it before and likely will again. It's just sometimes the source of some 'inspirations' that seem to affect some more than others. Which, I guess is fair comment, just perplexing sometimes as well.




*This actually does not apply to Nemesis - I rarely bother with it as a result of it being an inferior version.

[horatio]

Originality is no virtue, quality is.

To adress the two TWOK "rip-offs", NEM does not suck because it has some superficial similarities and ST09 does not work because it repeats some TWOK formulae.
But if one wants to play the comparison game, Khan is fluently written whereas Shinzon's as well as Nero's motivation are fairly vague. One can think around the corner and explain them, but that's not subtext but filling the gaps.
So these two characters don't work because they are Khan-copies, there have been plenty of fictional genocidal madman before Khan, but because they are not as well written as he is.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Originality is no virtue, quality is.

To adress the two TWOK "rip-offs", NEM does not suck because it has some superficial similarities and ST09 does not work because it repeats some TWOK formulae.
But if one wants to play the comparison game, Khan is fluently written whereas Shinzon's as well as Nero's motivation are fairly vague. One can think around the corner and explain them, but that's not subtext but filling the gaps.
So these two characters don't work because they are Khan-copies, there have been plenty of fictional genocidal madman before Khan, but because they are not as well written as he is.

I think that's part of the problem - for me Nemesis has neither originality nor quality. Obviously everyone has a different definition of quality but there's just nothing new in that film and what is there isn't well done. Now, I know that the same thing can be said for the new film and that's fair comment, yet it's by far a more entertaining couple of hours in the cinema.

Star Trek works better in that sense because there is a better director at work making it all flow into a seamlessly energetic couple of hours, instead of the leaden NEM.

That said, I think that Montalban is part of what elevates Khan above the ordinary - his core motivation is not much different from Nero (death of his wife sends him on a mission against the person he holds responsible) and certainly much of Khan's actual dialogue in the film is not of the highest quality.

That Khan expresses that more clearly and is played by an actor who can make sometimes iffy dialogue genuine (always a plus when casting Star Trek at times) is what lifts him and makes him more memorable.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

I think that's part of the problem - for me Nemesis has neither originality nor quality. Obviously everyone has a different definition of quality but there's just nothing new in that film and what is there isn't well done. Now, I know that the same thing can be said for the new film and that's fair comment, yet it's by far a more entertaining couple of hours in the cinema.

Star Trek works better in that sense because there is a better director at work making it all flow into a seamlessly energetic couple of hours, instead of the leaden NEM.

That said, I think that Montalban is part of what elevates Khan above the ordinary - his core motivation is not much different from Nero (death of his wife sends him on a mission against the person he holds responsible) and certainly much of Khan's actual dialogue in the film is not of the highest quality.

That Khan expresses that more clearly and is played by an actor who can make sometimes iffy dialogue genuine (always a plus when casting Star Trek at times) is what lifts him and makes him more memorable.

Sure, Montalban made the most popular Trek villain out of a a mediocrely written character. But Khan was still better written than Shinzon or Nero:

Kirk was responsible for the deaths of Khan's wife and followers, he did not oversee the kind of prison he put Khan&Co. into.
Picard and all of humankind on the other hand were not responsible for Shinzon's fate, the Romulans were, just like Spock and the Vulcans were not responsible for the destruction of Romulus, the Romulan were. (So is ST09 a rip-off of NEM? )

But is this really such a big deal, after all they are both a bit crazy and you could explain Shinzon's desire to erradicate humankind as a form of self-hatred and Nero's act of blaming Spock, the Vulcans and the entire Federation as typical Romulan behaviour, they are not used to critisize their fascistoid government.

While these points are valid, they neglect other characters. Nero says nothing about anyone, Shinzon makes at least Picard think shortly about fate and Khan says a lot about Kirk, about duties he neglected and the people who died because of that (part of Khan's crew as well as part of Kirk's crew when he does not raise the shields before the first attack of the Reliant).

But as already mentioned, Nero being badly written has only a small effect upon the quality of ST09.
The only scene which made me cringe was when Nero cried "Spock!" and went after him in the Jellyfish, because it immediately reminded me of the analogous scene in TWOK ... and Nero going after a young Spock who has not wronger him in any way (OK fate, young Spock will become PrimeSpock) felt so weak in comparison.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Sure, Montalban made the most popular Trek villain out of a a mediocrely written character. But Khan was still better written than Shinzon or Nero:

Kirk was responsible for the deaths of Khan's wife and followers, he did not oversee the kind of prison he put Khan&Co. into.
Picard and all of humankind on the other hand were not responsible for Shinzon's fate, the Romulans were, just like Spock and the Vulcans were not responsible for the destruction of Romulus, the Romulan were. (So is ST09 a rip-off of NEM? )

But is this really such a big deal, after all they are both a bit crazy and you could explain Shinzon's desire to erradicate humankind as a form of self-hatred and Nero's act of blaming Spock, the Vulcans and the entire Federation as typical Romulan behaviour, they are not used to critisize their fascistoid government.

While these points are valid, they neglect other characters. Nero says nothing about anyone, Shinzon makes at least Picard think shortly about fate and Khan says a lot about Kirk, about duties he neglected and the people who died because of that (part of Khan's crew as well as part of Kirk's crew when he does not raise the shields before the first attack of the Reliant).

But as already mentioned, Nero being badly written has only a small effect upon the quality of ST09.
The only scene which made me cringe was when Nero cried "Spock!" and went after him in the Jellyfish, because it immediately reminded me of the analogous scene in TWOK ... and Nero going after a young Spock who has not wronger him in any way (OK fate, young Spock will become PrimeSpock) felt so weak in comparison.

I think Kirk's actions are - well, he cheaped out by letting Khan go to the planet, and not ensuring he faced a belated trial for his past - but I think Khan is being selective when he blames Kirk. He did choose to go to that planet and his followers (McGiver's included) chose to go with him.

They didn't carry out a full survey, but it's debatable what level of study would have shown up the creature. But I think Khan's fury is partly his own anger that it's also his fault they were put there and thus as much his fault she died.

It's not really ALL Kirk's fault.

(as an aside, the issue of Kirk/Khan and Starfleet still bothers me in as far as the whole scenario continues to make no sense.

Did Kirk even tell Starfleet he left Khan there? When the planet blew up how did Starfleet not notice? If they knew Khan was there did they not think to check on him? Did they just ignore him?

So many problems arise out of the start, but I digress)

While I agree that Khan forced Kirk to face an aspect of his life, I don't feel Shinzon particularly challenged Picard in any serious way. Picard had already been through some examples of meeting himself (Time Squared, Tapestry) which both contain more pertinent observations than those Shinzon could muster - another reason he's rather irrelevant as the villain, he doesn't even bring anything new to the table.

That said, Nero's ultimate effect in the film is to bring this crew together to begin their mission as the Enterprise crew - he is the catalyst for the new timeline and it's because of him that they now serve together.

He's almost the creator.

In the final analysis, of course, it hardly matters - weak villains are a problem Star Trek has always had difficulty overcoming since they decided to go down the 'villain-of-the-week' style approach.

[horatio]

It seems pretty straightforward to me that Kirk did not tell Starfleet or that he kept a lousy record of the events.
It would repeat what we see in the movie, that he does a lousy job in administration. While he previously ignored regulations to do things more efficiently and creatively (ST09 pointed this out very well), he does it now just because he is used to. Then people die, ironically people like Spock or Scotty's nephew who died while the excelled at their jobs.
And after Kirk has learned his lesson, he breaks rules for a purpose again in the next movie.

Anyway, it does not matter how it happened precisely or whether Kirk is really responsible for Khan&Co.'s misery, all that matters is that Khan is not just a mad dude who has to be eliminated but connected to Kirk and the key themes of the movie.

Shinzon was a weak attempt to do something similar and as you correctly pointed out, Nero was just a plot device.

[JSnyder4]

Originally Posted by kevin

I think Kirk's actions are - well, he cheaped out by letting Khan go to the planet, and not ensuring he faced a belated trial for his past - but I think Khan is being selective when he blames Kirk. He did choose to go to that planet and his followers (McGiver's included) chose to go with him.

Kirk gave him what he asked for.
"Better to Rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."
Seems as though for Wrath of Khan they took that phrasing a bit literally.
The allegory isn't missed. Khan as Satan, exiled by choice (to a prison acceptable to him).
Unrepentant, irredeemable and unapologetic (and apparently a whiner).

Better to rut in glory than be neutered in safety.
What was left? Captain Garthing him and everyone with a Tantalus field? Kill him outright? Kirk gave him the challenge he wanted and Khan wasn't up to it and got royally pissed off at his lack of success because the world didn't stay static for him. Simple really. Although from Khan's excuses it seems he wanted Kirk to come check up on him like a nursemaid regardless. Khan seemed to be more intelligent than to expect Kirk to be able to predict a natural disaster, so it all came down to the blame game.
"Why didn't you know the next planet over would go boom months after you left me here and that it would alter this one as well! You suck! I deeply and truly hate you white whale."

as an aside, the issue of Kirk/Khan and Starfleet still bothers me in as far as the whole scenario continues to make no sense.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although in a way, Kirk's own demise was similar in nature.
A man out of time, already thought to be dead long ago.
Did Picard really make a report about Kirk or is it just fandom that wants it to be so. Kirk died a "hero", Khan died a "bad guy".
Is adding one more medal to Kirk postumously worth it in the end?
Would Kirk making a report about Khan improve Khan's image any? Or would it simply be an excuse to hunt him down for interviews on Galactic E! True Hollywood Story. Kirk dropped the charges and Khan took the plea-bargain.
Then got angry jail wasn't a resort.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

In fairness, Nero's motivation are fairly vague because the movie really isn't about him at all, but the crew.