Filmmaking is visual reference of personal stories. How would this have even worked in the silent era otherwise?
For the example I provided.
I'm not sure how well Shaw's monolog would translate to five minutes' worth of dialog frames.
Just as in Star Wars (1977) when Kenobi told Luke this Darth Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father, or Vader helped the Empire hunt down the Jedi, we did not need a pointless flashback to either event, to see that it was used to inspire Luke to eventually fight the Empire, or build Vader's reputation as the great eveil of the galaxy. Obi-Wan's story was enough to get the point across
But here again, Obi's story is not Luke's motivation. Aside for his thirst for adventure, Luke is pretty apathetic to the whole idea until he finds Owen and Buru murdered. There is clear on-screen
evidence that it was storm troopers who did it. It is then that Luke sets-off to rescue a princess and maybe roll some Imps in the process. It is the Empire--or rather Tarkin as its figurehead--that's the villain in Star Wars, not Vader. Vader is the foil. His B-plot is used to set up ESB. As far as him being evil, there were plenty of scenes of him doing evil shit to reinforce what Obi had said.
This from a guy who defends the Harvey Comics-like plotting of nuTrek.
I'd sure like to know where I did this. All I've done is defend it from hypocritically-biased attacks so completely void of reality, truth, or fact they only serve to promote an agenda. "Harvey Comics-like" for example.
If provided plenty of criticism of ST09 over the years and have only seen STiD once so far.
The only wholly, definitive opinion I've even offered in the last couple of weeks is this list:
Back to the matter: the person telling the story is the believable source--we have no casue to question the source (as noted in the Kenobi example)...unless you need everything trotted out in front for your face.
For secondary plotting elements, dialog is perfectly fine. If it weren't movies would have to be 10 hours long.
But for the primary story element, the main driving force, whatever you want to call it, there has
to be some kind of visual stimuli. "Picture" is part of the medium name. It doesn't even have to be something obvious.
Sometimes abstract is fine--or even better. There are countless ways Meyer could have presented Khan's lament with even needing to use McGivers. It's too bad she did wear any jewelry or distinctive adornments in Space Seed because they'd be an obvious replacement for the Delta buckle Khan wore.
Funny how no one else ever had a problem accepting Khan's line--or whined about the absence of Marla. They were too busy following the story, which did not confuse anyone regarding Khan's motives.
It's not about clarity but substance. I already said that.
I could tell you my laptop is black with silver trim or I could take a picture of it and email it to you.
They are both equally clear.
The picture is much more descriptive and provides much greater detail. It adds "weight" to its existence and makes it more "real" for you.
Quint's single-minded desire to kill the shark takes center stage: he's the reason the Orca never returns for another ship (or help), which keeps the group at sea long enough for the advantage to completely shift to the shark. By the way, no one builds a character unless it is intended to mean something to his overall behavior. His expressed feelings about the Indianapolis incident come into play when the boat is taking on water, and--of course--as he slides into the shark's mouth.
Still not relevant to Brody's narrative.
It's usually best to show the audience an event rather than merely describing it, but the plot and pacing of a particular film don't always make this possible. Khan's dialogue was enough for the audience to understand what happened. Given the horror experienced by Terrell and Chekov as the eels entered their ears, it's not at all difficult to imagine that Khan's wife died horribly.
But again it's not so much about showing the event as showing it's the defining force in Khan's motives.
Once again, it's not at all difficult to understand Khan's hatred of Kirk. Look at how he and his people were forced to live after the Enterprise left them there.
I agree. When they decided not to use McGivers Meyer should have use that as the plot trigger. Drop the whole wife refrain completely.
Some lines would've had to have been changed. And he would have had to play it up a bit with the remaining crew--heck there are a bunch of ways he could have gone with Joachim had he chosen this route instead. It wouldn't have taken much.
But leaving things as he did, Khan's whole arc hinges on Montalban's brilliant performance. But story should never expect to depend on performance. Had a lesser actor had been cast, I can't help but wonder if it would have been a much bigger issue.
It's actually one huge criticism I have with TDK, even though I think it's one of the best films of the young century. If it weren't for one of the best performances of all-time, the Joker would have been a really flimsy character.
I think much the same can be said for Khan.
As the film's production staff went to the trouble of bringing back Kyle to be Reliant's communications officer, it would not have made sense to use another actress to play her, and choosing another in place of an ailing woman would have been disrespectful. It doesn't matter that she wasn't a big name actress. She made the character what it was and deserved to play the role had it been used again.
The whole "disrespectful" thing is played way out of proportion.
Here's the thing: Rhue was just in a wheelchair. Though I have no way of knowing, I assume her health was otherwise more or less okay most of the time.
My mom has MS. While she does have bad days, most of the time she gets about just fine. Rhue continued working until 1996. So it's safe to assume she would have been perfectly able to do would have probably been only a couple of days of shooting.
So if the real
reason Harvey chose not to use her was just because she was in a wheelchair--now that is
disrespectful if not discriminatory. As I said previously (and you agreed), having her appear in the wheelchair--or some wheelchair-like prop where she was comfortable--would have probably been better, anyway.
I doubt Bennett is that detestable. So I would bet that whole story is somewhat apocryphal.
The more likely scenario, as someone suggested up-thread, was she was just professionally unavailable, in which case a recast would have been no big deal at all.
So the only reason left not to recast is this silly notion that's currently running amok that suggests TOS characters are sacrosanct and immune to recasting.