They spent months hashing out this story, putting far more thought and care into its construction than you or I ever have, and with far more at stake for them career-wise if they screwed it up.
You can't use that as an argument that it was right, though. Yes, from a general-consumption perspective, it did work. But people put a lot of thought and care into less popular movies like
Fantastic Four and
Daredevil and had just as much at stake.
I can't argue that it didn't satisfy most other people. But the points you make there are purely incidental to that.
Personally, I'm puzzled that you're having such a hard time understanding these decisions. I think you just need to learn to open your mind and be a little more flexible.
I think there's a definite difference between not understanding something, and simply disagreeing. I think that I do understand, but just feel it could've been more artistic. That doesn't mean that I couldn't ever be flexible enough to appreciate this on its own merits; but analyzing how something could've been better is a valid topic for discussion, in my opinion (and discussing these points to such a rigorous degree can actually aid my appreciation). I also think that opining on how something could've been better isn't tantamount to judging it "bad." Do you disagree?
Actually, I do think that the storytelling in Batman & Robin was radically different from Batman Forever. Maybe not quite as radical as Begins, but Forever was a lot less campy than B&R, and part of the reason that Val Kilmer was dropped is that he was resistant to the extent of campiness to which Schumacher was trying to take it.
Only a difference of degree, really.
I suppose. But the point I was making was that the change in cast and change in tone were directly connected.
I never claimed that "the general public would never even have heard of Vulcan." Of course that's ridiculous. I rather claimed that they wouldn't know whether it had ever blown up or not.
That's being way too literal-minded. They didn't have to know whether it had blown up or not. But they knew it was an important place in the Trek universe, and they knew it was important to one of the two main characters of the series, so blowing it up is something they'd recognize as a big fracking deal regardless of whether they're intimately acquainted with the historical minutiae of the original continuity. I think you're trying to evaluate everything here on far too reductionistic and literalistic a level, and are missing the forest for the trees. The way an audience responds to movies isn't about specific factual details and minutiae, it's about their overall impressions and visceral responses.
I don't even think it's an important place in the Trek universe. If Vulcan had been destroyed in the Prime universe, what story-lines (other than the above stated) would that have changed?
That is an interesting point, but in some ways, I find it ironic. We shouldn't be 60's cavemen by only considering the man, but apparently all the woman is good for is having someone to kiss the man. If Uhura had been more of a key player in the movie, maybe this point would be more significant to me.
And I think it's chauvinistic to assume that just because her role is romantic, that makes her unimportant as a character. The point is that she's the
initiator of the relationship, that she's not an appendage but is a character with agency in her own right. Uhura's role in the film fundamentally alters the whole Kirk-Spock dynamic, by giving Kirk a rival and gadfly and Spock a humanizing influence and confidante. She is
absolutely a key player in the movie, so much so that even McCoy is pushed to the sidelines. Like I said, this is fundamentally a character-driven movie, and even though her role in the physical action is secondary, her impact on the character dynamic is profound.
Well, I'm going to have to differ the point, because I really don't think I want to get into a discussion about gender roles.
Anyway, that's beside the point I'm making, which is about those two specific scenes. Regardless of her role in the overall film, she's the aggressor in her romance with Spock, so it's missing the point to think the romantic scenes should've used Vulcan expressions of intimacy instead of human ones.
Why is it missing the point to suggest that she, being the initiator, might have initiated the type of contact that would be the most meaningful to a Vulcan (that is, the object of her affection)?
But then, I'll go ahead and respond to myself that the question brings the argument into a circle about what types of intimacy Spock would respond to. I think that probably just has to be left open to interpretation.
Well, I think the discussion's starting to wind down (maybe not, who knows), but before it officially fades, I want to say that this has been a most thought-provoking discussion; the best one I've had on here in quite a long a time. I sincerely hope I wasn't the only who drew some value from it.
