Question about new Star Trek movie

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That is what I figured, but it just doesn't seem to add up. I thought they should of explained that bit a lot more, considering that is what caused the whole thing to go nutty in the first place, his failing to stop it.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

That is what I figured, but it just doesn't seem to add up. I thought they should of explained that bit a lot more, considering that is what caused the whole thing to go nutty in the first place, his failing to stop it.

If he had managed to stop the destruction there would have been no film, at least not one involving Eric Bana being pissed off and looking for revenge, ergo, Spock had to fail.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

That is what I figured, but it just doesn't seem to add up. I thought they should of explained that bit a lot more, considering that is what caused the whole thing to go nutty in the first place, his failing to stop it.

We're lucky they screened the film during production so they could cut out other parts of the movie that confused viewers:

en.wikipedia.org...

After the shoot, Abrams cut out some scenes of Kirk and Spock as children, including seeing the latter as a baby, as well as a subplot involving Nero being imprisoned by the Klingons and his escape: this explanation for his absence during Kirk's life confused many to whom Abrams screened the film.

As much as I appreciate less confusion, I always wonder what I missed in the cut-out scenes!