I'd like a Nimoy "cameo"

[Set Harth]

Bishop76 wrote:

---

Not even close. I'm saying I don't need Nimoy crammed into a scene telling me how bad things are just for the sake of cramming Nimoy into a scene. I'd rather just see how bad things are and have the film itself convey that message to me.

"Show, don't tell" usually means "show me instead of just telling me", not "don't tell me even after you've already shown me".

[Bishop76]

Thank you for the lesson in semantics. I'm sure we're all smarter for it. Your wisdom is boundless and I feel like I've really grown today.

Generally speaking, though, "show, don't tell" means that you use primarily the visual medium in as naturalistic a way as possible to convey your story without inserting clunky dialogue that FURTHER explains your meaning for no good reason.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Festivus Toad wrote:

---

You know what would be great? If at the end Riker says "End program."

That would make everyone happy.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Bishop76 wrote:

---

Thank you for the lesson in semantics. I'm sure we're all smarter for it. Your wisdom is boundless and I feel like I've really grown today.

Generally speaking, though, "show, don't tell" means that you use primarily the visual medium in as naturalistic a way as possible to convey your story without inserting clunky dialogue that FURTHER explains your meaning for no good reason.

Exactly.

"Show don't tell" should not be thought of as being an absolute. There have been many a great film that had including a line or two of dialogue that explains some action that happened off screen. Sometimes including the scene that shows that action would be a detriment to the flow of the film.

There are some things that the audience can figure out for themselves by the placement of a clever line of dialogue, rather than holding the audience's hand and showing them everything that is being discussed on screen by the characters.

There is no need to ALWAYS show and don't tell.

[Set Harth]

Jackson Roykirk wrote:

---

There have been many a great film that had including a line or two of dialogue that explains some action that happened off screen. Sometimes including the scene that shows that action would be a detriment to the flow of the film.

You're advocating "tell, don't show", the exact opposite of what Swearengen wants.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Set Harth wrote:

---

You're advocating "tell, don't show", the exact opposite of what Swearengen wants.

I'm saying it isn't as absolute as you make it sound.

[JarodRussell]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Besides, since the plan is to do a trilogy, I say leave Nimoy out of this one, thereby making his cameo in Trek XIII all the more powerful.

But just to be on the safe side, they should film that cameo right now.

[teacake]

Yes, definitely.

[Set Harth]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I'm saying it isn't as absolute as you make it sound.

I'm not one who believes in its absolute nature. You're dealing with a poster who not only advocates the colloquial meaning of "show, don't tell", but takes it a step further to "showing AND telling is unacceptable, one must only show".

[M'Sharak]

Set Harth wrote:

---

I'm not one who believes in its absolute nature. You're dealing with a poster who not only advocates the colloquial meaning of "show, don't tell", but takes it a step further to "showing AND telling is unacceptable, one must only show".

I believe the one horse has been flogged just about to pet food. Let's move on, shall we, Set, and not start swinging at new horses which were never here in the first place?

[newtontomato539]

I don't want this to be like Generations. Please Noooooooooo!

[RoJoHen]

While I'd love to see Nimoy's Spock again, unless a big part of this movie's plot has to do with Vulcan Reconstruction, I don't see there being much of a point for him to be in it.

[BillJ]

I'm a huge TOS fan and I don't want to see Nimoy again and I definitely don't want him making comparative statements about what he saw in TOS and what is taking place in the new film.

Pine, Quinto and the rest of the cast and crew need to succeed or fail on the quality of the universe they've created, not keep going back to the well.

[Franklin]

The idea that the movie might open with the memorial service with the flyby being for Spock Prime (hey, he was old) had crossed my mind before the first nine minutes were revealed. It would've had everyone in one place at one time. A convenient target for a terrorist. Shortly after Kirk finishes his words and there's the flyby, the detonating starts.
Actually, the sentimentalist in me thought, it would've been nice to see Spock Prime given the proper Starfleet sendoff he would've had in his universe. It also would've been better than how Berman treated Kirk.

[The Wormhole]

Franklin wrote:

---

The idea that the movie might open with the memorial service with the flyby being for Spock Prime (hey, he was old) had crossed my mind before the first nine minutes were revealed. It would've had everyone in one place at one time. A convenient target for a terrorist. Shortly after Kirk finishes his words and there's the flyby, the detonating starts.
Actually, the sentimentalist in me thought, it would've been nice to see Spock Prime given the proper Starfleet sendoff he would've had in his universe. It also would've been better than how Berman treated Kirk.

Thing is, would Spock Prime really be that well known to warrant that kind of a memorial service? In the grand scheme of things, he's just another Vulcan to everyone else. Sure, the Enterprise crew knows who he really is, but he's likely keeping his actual identity a secret. A deleted scene from Trek XI implies he has no intention of telling Sarek who he is, so I doubt the other Vulcans or anyone at Starfleet is going to find out.