Audiences so not need a visual reference for personal stories,
visual reference of personal stories. How would this have even worked in the silent era otherwise?
Buster Keaton wants to play a pickpocket. He can go about it two ways:
Have a dialog frame that reads, "This is Bob; he's a pickpocket."
Or write a scene where he picks someone's pocket.
What do you think he's going to do? What's going to be the most effective and believable for the audience?
as the person telling it is considered a believeable source.
He's the villain!
Only screenwriters thinkinf audences all suffer from the videogame mentality--where everything is visually spelled out--resort such uneccessary scenes, and it becomes less about character building than setpieces.
Since Barney and Fred were drawing on cave walls, the golden rule of storytelling has always
been "show don't tell." At least since the Greek plays, [long] scenes have been written and elaborate sets have been erected for the sole purpose of adding merit and weight to a character's actions. Because, you know, they show; they don't tell.
This methodology has always been apart of film. But, by your logic, they may has well have just left the whole Paris sequence out of Casablanca
Funny thing about TWOK is does a lot of telling and not an awful lot of showing.
One great example where no visual reference was needed was in Jaws; we did not need a visual flashback to Quint's experience with shark attacks after the sinking of the Indianapolis to understand his determination to kill THE shark, or why he said he would never wear a lifejacket again. We got it.
Aside from equating one of the great film monologs to a single throwaway line, this analogy is totally erroneous.
Quint was neither the primary antagonist nor protagonist of the film. He could have been completely cut with minimal effect on the plot. Therefore, his motivations and backstory were ultimately irrelevant to the narrative.
Brody's, however, were all clearly depicted on screen.
The shark is never implied nor expected to be anything more than a mindless animal. It's shown to be a mindless animal. But when you call your movie "The Wrath of Khan," it's standard procedure to show why this Khan bloke is wrathing.
I seriously doubt anyone in 1982 (or beyond) questioned Khan's motivations.
It has long been established as one of the film's biggest mistakes. It's been brought up in reviews and other assorted writings and musings, and gets mentioned around here at least once a year.
it is called respect for the actress who brought the character to life.
I forgot. Marla Mcgivers is iconic.