Yes. Which is really central to my calling it a "stunt." It was done for that "shock effect." That's what they're saying, that's what I'm saying.
Actually, it's a dramatic way to make a point. Not a "stunt".
Dude, there are other movies out there, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit. I'm guessing that you didn't go to those "ten showings" with a date?
I like the film. So I saw it multiple times, with friends, with my wife. I've also seen a lot of other films, some good, some bad (IMHO, of course). Incidently, my wife loved it, though she's not a Trekker by any streach.
In the Austin IMAX theater, the audience clapped at all the big, "kewl effects shots." I also know that at least one opening-night show in Columbus Ohio had that, and that it happened in Chicago and in Raleigh, because friends of mine who went to shows there told me that it happened.
Were you there, or was this anecdotal? What kind of audience had that reaction? I can't speak for those events, only what I've observed personally.
I'm not claiming that this happened every time, in every theater. This is called "anecdotal evidence." As I often say in my posts... "your mileage may vary."I'm sure that there have been fans who took non-fans to the show, and that some of them liked it enough to want to know more. I'm even sure that you could say "many." Of course, this is an unsupported claim, not even really "anecdotal" in nature.
Take a look around several forums. I think there were some in this forum, but why even dispute this? It happened. Not everyone was swayed, but there are accounts I've seen in passing on various forums.
We have no idea how many times this happened. However, I feel pretty confident in saying that if it happened far, far more rarely than "hey, dude, let's go see a movie this weekend... what's on? Oh, that Star Track movie, with Doctor Spock and the dude who sleeps with hot green chicks!" And that, after walking out of the theater, those folks would almost entirely forget about the movie, and next time would go see some other movie, which they'll also immediately forget about right afterwards.
No. Neither of us can state for sure about how much it happened. But it did, and that's a good thing when it did.
The number of "Trek fans" in general is pretty small these days. The number who loved the movie is smaller... and those who brought "non-fans who became fans" is probably pretty small indeed... on the same level as "those who know the combination to Kirk's cabin safe."
Star Trek fans are fairly numerous. But most Star Trek fans I know, and I saw the movie with some for the first time, liked it. Obviously, there are those who didn't like it. You're presense here illustrates this obvoius point.
Can I prove that? Of course not. But at least I have a train of logic I've followed to get there. Can you demonstrate why we should accept that there was any significant percentage of the movie's viewership which "recruited new fans?" I remain unconvinced.
I merely stated that it happened. I never stated that it happened 90% of the time.
You can't consider the sequences which were not shown on-screen... most viewers will not know anything but that which was shown on-screen... which is limited to "Young Spock gets bullied at school" and "Late-teen Spock tells the Vulcan Science Academy what to do with their offer."
But it worked for most of those who never saw Trek before, and most of the Trek fans I've spoken to about the film. There's far more than just those scenes in a 2 hours, 6 minute movie.
The "deleted scenes" really add depth to this, and should have been kept IMHO, but they weren't.
I've seen some of these, and agree they were effective, but the film had to come in under 2 hours, and much of the information presented was not vital to telling the story, or were alluded to elsewhere in the movie.
Example: Spock's Birth. If they had kept that in, it would have been stating the obvious: Spock was born on Vulcan, to Sarek and Amanda. It would also have slowed the movie down, and we would have missed the opening with the Kelvin as the first scene.
Actually, I did care about George Kirk... that sequence was very effective in that regard.
Good scene. 
But the connection between George Kirk and James Kirk was effectively non-existent, except for the "birthin' the baby" sequence (and very few of us remember being babies, do we?) and the fact that Pike talked about George Kirk in his little monologue at the bar.
George Kirk Sr.'s death, how he died, provided something for Kirk to have to live up to. Pike effectively became a sort of father figure to Kirk in a way, and his father's death was something that shaped his thinking.
Some people lose their father in the Military without knowing them, but presumably are told about him, meaning that there is a sense of loss on Kirk's part.
Until Pike comes along, Kirk never had to face this.
Even in death, a father can inspire.
There was very little in the way of on-screen material to connect "Jim Kirk" and "George Kirk" in this film. There wasn't even a "My name is Diego Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" bit... which I think should have been a major "Kirk" theme, shouldn't it have been?True, but we've seen the "Kirk tweaks Spock to get an emotional reaction" before.
There is also the fact that Old Spock remembers Kirk as being alive and proud, and present when Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise.
All loss, ultimately, is PERSONAL loss. We can shrug off the destruction of Pompey, except as an interesting anecdote, but can be deeply personally impacted by the death of our next-door neighbor. The loss Spock felt here wasn't treated "personally" enough, IMHO. The destruction of Vulcan actually CHEAPENED the loss of Amanda, as far as I'm concerned. I think that the story would have been orders of magnitude better had they not pulled the "stunt" of destroying Vulcan and had focused much more on the "personal loss" side of things.
I think the loss of Vulcan actually would have COMPOUNDED Spock's sense of loss. From a dramatic perspective, it works by upping the stakes emotionally.
Also, the destruction of Vulcan also adds a sense of urgency to the plot, establishing how dangerous Nero was, and providing the reason he must be stopped beyond the basic "revenge" story.
There were many scenes with Uhura. I presume you mean the "kissing" scene? I don't fundamentally object to that, but I think it would have been far more relevant without the "my mom is dead... AND my planet blew up... " thing. The scene would have made more sense, IMHO, had it only been the loss of his mother (and if his mother had been much better developed in terms of the movie's story).
If it would make sense for once loss, it makes even more sense for 2 losses. Furthering Amanda's development may have been a good idea, but Amanda was not the focus. Spock was.
A "general audience" barely acknowledge this. On-screen, she was almost entirely undeveloped, except for what's essentially a "thought balloon explanation" in one scene where, as you say, we are told "this is Spock's mom." She was never developed, on-screen, as an actual CHARACTER.
She was developed enough for the audience to know Spock had a human mother, and that's all an audience needs to know. After all, it is well known by many what it is like to lose a parent, both anecdotally and literally.
She was, essentially, a "prop." The stuff that established her as a person was all left on the cutting room floor.
Because it didn't help telling the story, and due to pacing and time.
Yes, that's true. You're clearly stating that for a purpose, but I fail to see what point you're trying to make by saying it.
This is about my statement that non-fans get the info needed to connect with the movie, but fans get more due to greater knowledge. My "yes and no" response.
Again, it seems to me that the casting of Nimoy in this film was really just another "stunt." Is there anything in the storyline of this movie that could not have been there had Nimoy not appeared? I can't see anything.
On this, you may be right. Spock's role here was not so much as a "stunt" but as a bridge between old and new. He also served to provide insight into who Spock would presumably later become, as well as provide exposition. If Spock were not there, we would have to find out why Nero went back some other way, which would have been more problematic.
In fact, his introduction on the ice-planet seemed to me as serving no real storytelling purpose whatsoever except to strain the bounds of credulity. Unless you accept that "God was steering everything" in the course of this movie, it's inconceivable that Kirk would have randomly been dumped on the same planet Spock was stranded on, landed within about two blocks' distance of Spock's cave, and wandered randomly into that cave.
There is a sense that fate was in play, that the crew of the Enterprise were supposed to be there. A deleted line from Old Spock alludes to the possibility that the Universe is trying to right itself in this regard.
It's not reasonable... it's not logical... it doesn't make me accept the movie any further. It would ONLY make sense if there was some "invisible hand" behind the scenes steering everything in the universe. It is literally a miracle which we were shown.
You are right. It doesn't make logical sense. But this plays into the idea that the crew, and Kirk in particular, are destined to be where they are by the end of the film.
Kirk and crew, for Star Trek audiences, are legendary. Not even an Alternate Reality could stop the crew of the Enterprise coming together.
Corny? Yes. But some things are simply meant to be. That's what I get.
