I'd like a Nimoy "cameo"
- Thread starter JRoss
- Start date
Oh, I don't know... show of respect for the dead, perhaps?
Then you would love the scene described. The version you would have a problem with wouldn't show Spock Prime's shock. It wouldn't show Spock Prime at all. It would have some other character telling us Spock Prime was shocked.
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.
I'm not asking what purpose him being at the memorial would serve, I'm asking what purpose jamming Leonard Nimoy into that scene would serve other than fanwank.
Tuvok did say the Vulcan labido increases with age. Spock Prime should be around 150. I'm sure he just lays in bed and waits for the next woman to come in.
Damn, this is giving me all kinds of fan fic ideas...
Last edited:
Firstly let me say I don't care if they do it or not. I was not suggesting it as an idea they better have thought of themselves and included in the film.
Now, help me understand your resistance to the idea. Do you know something more about the film than I, something which would logically preclude a cameo from Nimoy at a memorial service - like you know the service is for someone Spock doesn't or couldn't possibly know or care about, and therefore would have no reason to stand among the mourners and grieve? Could he not be there because he is the deceased?
Next, if a logical reason for him to be there did exist, brings me to his actual 'presence'; heck, Nimoy need not be there in the flesh at all, providing he has no lines. A stand-in wearing his robes with a cg face looking stoically onto the proceedings along with everyone else, (or lurking in the back, even.) Would that really be so terribly fanwanky, and if so please explain why.
Because no one but a hard core fan would even think about it?
I don't care whether he's in the movie or not. It's just not interesting.
I don't care whether he's in the movie or not. It's just not interesting.
Forget fanfic, let's get that scene in the movie!!
"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".
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.
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.
I'm saying it isn't as absolute as you make it sound.
But just to be on the safe side, they should film that cameo right now.
Yes, definitely.
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?
