Nor was it important for them to do so with a peripheral character such as Nero. The focus of the story is clearly Kirk and Spock.

“Certainly, the film offered no invitation to think about it.”

While I definitely agree that the character’s motivation isn’t particularly important, It is absolutely there within the story for the taking—in the words of both Nero and Spock Prime at different points in the film.

One need not have read “Countdown” to know that Nero has suffered great loss, for which he blames the Federation and the man who failed to deliver what his people needed to survive. Nor does one need only to rely upon Nero’s point of view, as Spock Prime conveys his own feelings of guilt and responsibility for this as well. Indeed, the audience is made completely aware that, before any of this took place, Nero was a man who had chosen to make his living as a miner—-and only chose this path after having everything of value to him taken in one fell swoop.

All of this is in the dialogue of the movie. Yet you contend that the film offers “no invitation to think about it”? What more do you require to explain a peripheral character in such a story?

Naaaah!

That last point is crucial, when we consider what portion of the ticket sales was in the first couple of weeks … fanatic Trekfans aside, most people see a film only once, and most people see a film without a lot of foreknowledge of the story details, buying their ticket and THEN seeing the movie. So, especially in the first handful of weeks, most movie tickets are simply a vote for how much people _wanted to see_ the movie based on trailers and other promotional machinery, not how much they understood it or liked it after they did so. Only in later weeks, when word-of-mouth and repeat viewings become more important than intial buzz, can we even begin to pull an abstract picture of audience satisfaction together … and Star Trek, from the looks of it, will be fading out of theaters during those weeks, so we’ll need to take an even further abstracted and distorted guess based on DVD and Blu-Ray sales later on.

That said, I expect you’re right. Given the film’s … I believe the politically correct term is “accessible” moralities ["Good Guys! Bad Guys! Big Chief Bad Guy BAD! Good Guys GOOD! Good Guys KILL BAD GUYS! YAY!"] I doubt anyone gave a wet slap about why the Bad Guy was Bad. Certainly, the film offered no invitation to think about it (around here, we think about it uninvited) ;)

But as you pointed out before, the villain in the story is really a peripheral character anyway. ST09 is certainly not “villain-centric” by any means. Perhaps this is why Abrams decided that Nero’s expanded screentime was expendable.

That’s absolutely true. The villain’s very presence is merely a tool—-a catalyst which allows the filmmakers to tell this altered timeline origin tale.

“If anything Nero behaved like an insane Vulcan, allowing logic to control himself between mouth-foaming bouts of rabid behavior, much like the battle Spock fought in Operation — Annihilate!”

Remember that Nero has, to some small degree, compensated for the loss of that ordered discipline upon which Romulans depend by personifying his angst in the form of Spock Prime and the Federation. His placement of blame may not be what you and I would consider rational, but once again—- it isn’t supposed to be. After all, most attempts at “self-medication” are ultimately unsuccessful. However, Nero (like any Romulan) still craves a degree of order to his existence. The overwhelming desire to exact revenge upon those he perceives to have been either responsible for or complacent in the lack of action which caused him to lose so much is that ordered existence he seeks. I think that this is what gives him some semblance of control, as you alluded to—and probably the only thing which prevents him from behaving like the 100% stark raving madman I described above.