Damn, that's a bit disappointing.
I was really hoping Abrams wasn't going to pull another 'Hollywood turns an ethnic guy into a white guy' schtick.
Lame.
But AFAIC, the new/rebooted Trek is boring anyways, so big whoop for me, I guess.
Damn, that's a bit disappointing.
I was really hoping Abrams wasn't going to pull another 'Hollywood turns an ethnic guy into a white guy' schtick.
Wait... are Spanish people not white? Ricardo Montalban's parents were from Spain. Or is white here specifically meant to be northern European or Anglo-Saxon or something other than just white? Or are you really referring to nation of origin since, though of 100% Spanish extraction, Montalban was born and raised in Mexico?
Because I have to say, if this argument of yours makes any sense, you've got to attack the original portrayal of Khan as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there's a spoilertastic thread title . . .
Well there's a spoilertastic thread title . . .
How is the character's name a spoiler?
It wouldn't be a big deal if Abrams hadn't been denying it was Kahn for the beginning.
Spoilers are things like:It's his sled or he's a ghost the whole time or he's rally the devil.
Also Kahn is supposed to be from India if I recall. If that's true Ricardo Montalban was not the correct ethnicity for the original Kahn either.
IMO, JJ Abrams did'nt Kahn anyone.
Ohhh, that's horrid.
Well done! ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like there is a shortage of actors that would have fit the role. Was Naveen Andrews from Lost not available?
|
Also Kahn is supposed to be from India if I recall. If that's true Ricardo Montalban was not the correct ethnicity for the original Kahn either.
Yeah, the final version of Khan that appeared in the show was supposed to be from northern India. The original write-up was that he was a Norwegian terrorist who went by the cover name "John Ericssen". So the dialogue from the trailer and the fact that Benedict's character was "John Harrison" was a pretty dead giveaway ("Harrison" is one of the few named crew members on the original Enterprise who wasn't a main cast member or sleeping with Roddenberry).
So using the original terrorist version write-up instead of the final revolutionary version write-up fits with this series being a general reboot, but it doesn't really jive perfectly with the idea that this is an "alternate timeline starting from the point Kirk's dad was killed".
I guess this isn't an alternate timeline of the main series, it's an alternate timeline of an alternate timeline of the main series? *shrug*
Developer
|
Also, the movie takes place in space! Sorry if that's a spoiler.
Getting confirmation of what everyone suspected is nice. It seems like keeping the Khan factor out of the initial press was to ramp up the hype, but it wasn't handled the right way for folks not to just guess it was Kahn and then move on to being excited about other movies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the movie takes place in space! Sorry if that's a spoiler.
Getting confirmation of what everyone suspected is nice.
Bah, I flagged it this morning. It's not nice Mark, it sucks.
Yeah, I suspected it was Kahn, but the thing is.. if it was Kahn, I wanted JJ to sell me the story in his own way. Uncluttered by half the internet pissing and moaning about it before they ever saw the movie.
I, too wish Abrams had done something different. But then, I'm in the minority of despising the whole Khan thing. I HATED 'Space Seed', especially the whole Marla McGivers bit. Even at the age I was then, I thought her stupid and wishy-washy.
As for Khan being such a genius for learning how to operate the Enterprise from the manuals - Uhura relearned all of her life history and her entire education after being mind-wiped by Nomad, and much faster.
Granted, Wrath of Khan was a good movie, but perhaps a lot of that was in comparison to the first movie.
As for Khan's military genius...he took over the Enterprise with the help of a traitor, who then betrayed him. He was so sure of his physical and mental superiority that he lost to a trick.
Then there was his plan for the domination of humanity: he was going to take over an entire planet with the Enterprise and less than 80 people? And as for his past military genius? He couldn't think in 3 dimensions? He never faced subs or planes?
Sigh.
This had better be a very, very, VERY good movie.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Who did this Abrams guy bribe to get both Star Wars and Star Trek
How is the character's name a spoiler?
Because Cumberbatch's identity has been a topic of much debate. Khan was just one of several possibilities (amongst Gary Mitchell and Kirk's brother, amongst others). So yeah, a complete dick move for those who've been trying to avoid spoilers.
Not me, though, as I heard about this a couple of weeks back. Cumberbatch is, by all accounts, absolutely superb. Sure, it doesn't make sense (the timeline should only change from when Spock and Nero travel back, so everything before that, including the Botany Bay and Khan, should stay the same), but that can be borne for a good movie.
What can't is the ending. If the spoilers about the ending are accurate, it's going to be the most controversial ending to anything since MASS EFFECT 3.
|
I must confess, I didn't think this was a spoiler. I thought this was out ages ago, and I don't even follow these things closely. And anyway, it'll be all over the place in a few days, so anyone seeing the movie will doubtless know the identity of Cumberbatch's character unless they elect to sit in a hole between now and the movie release. So while we all enjoy a bit of nerd-rage these seems pretty small beer to me.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Khan is a genetically engineered super-soldier from a region that historically has a large British presence and imports vanguard scientists. I don't think Khan not looking ethnically Indian is that big a deal.
As far as white-washing the role: Cumberbatch is a rising star, plays a fantastic intellectual, and can be just plain scary. I'd rather have him in a role I want to see that most anyone.
|
How is the character's name a spoiler?Because Cumberbatch's identity has been a topic of much debate. Khan was just one of several possibilities (amongst Gary Mitchell and Kirk's brother, amongst others). So yeah, a complete dick move for those who've been trying to avoid spoilers.
Not me, though, as I heard about this a couple of weeks back. Cumberbatch is, by all accounts, absolutely superb. Sure, it doesn't make sense (the timeline should only change from when Spock and Nero travel back, so everything before that, including the Botany Bay and Khan, should stay the same), but that can be borne for a good movie.
What can't is the ending. If the spoilers about the ending are accurate, it's going to be the most controversial ending to anything since MASS EFFECT 3.
Really?!? I have not heard anything about the ending ... what have you heard? Spoiler tags of course :)
|
|
It can't really be different starting from when Kirk's dad was killed. The Eugenics Wars supposedly took place in the 1990s. Far enough off to be plausible in the mid 60s, but a bit odd now.So using the original terrorist version write-up instead of the final revolutionary version write-up fits with this series being a general reboot, but it doesn't really jive perfectly with the idea that this is an "alternate timeline starting from the point Kirk's dad was killed".
I guess this isn't an alternate timeline of the main series, it's an alternate timeline of an alternate timeline of the main series? *shrug*
Right, that's why the only way it works as an alternate timeline is if the new series is an alternate timeline of an already alternate timeline.
The first movie showed the point of divergence was when Kirk's father was killed. So everything before that point should be the same. Except it can't be because there's a different Khan (whose story would have been set long before Kirk's dad died).
So the point of divergence from the "normal" Star Trek timeline is the Eugenics War, not the death of Kirk's father that was shown in the first movie.
Having said that, the series still works as a general reboot even if the "alternate timeline" stuff doesn't work perfectly.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Spoilers
Was it the end of the world? No.
Did I suspect it anyway? Yeah.
Will I still go see the movie? Yeah.
But here's the deal. Its inconsiderate.
If I really wanted to know, I would have gone looking for confirmation.
If I wanted someone to tell me, I would have asked.
Is it sort of a forum rule not to post spoilers (i.e. "don't be a jerk")? Yes, it is. There is even a flag category for it.
There ya go.
Now you can chalk that up to "nerdrage" to just minimize any objection, and use internet slang to dismiss the fact that it was jerk behavior. Standard Internet 101, "attack the other party for objecting to the bad stuff you did in the first place".
This is how we enable people to be jerks.
Khan is a genetically engineered super-soldier from a region that historically has a large British presence and imports vanguard scientists. I don't think Khan not looking ethnically Indian is that big a deal.
As far as white-washing the role: Cumberbatch is a rising star, plays a fantastic intellectual, and can be just plain scary. I'd rather have him in a role I want to see that most anyone.
I'm not in an uproar about it, but you have to admit that a white guy with a British accent introducing himself as Khan Noonian Singh would get at least one question concerning his name. Hong Kong historically has a large British presence as well, but a white guy named Chow Yun Fat would raise some eyebrows.
Khan is a genetically engineered super-soldier from a region that historically has a large British presence and imports vanguard scientists. I don't think Khan not looking ethnically Indian is that big a deal.
As far as white-washing the role: Cumberbatch is a rising star, plays a fantastic intellectual, and can be just plain scary. I'd rather have him in a role I want to see that most anyone.
Yeah, I wanted to ask about that - was Khan Noonien Singh supposed to be ethnically Indian, or was that simply where he was vat-grown?
Khan being of any specific race seems to be inconsistent with the whole concept of the character (or of any of the other super-soldiers).
I don't think Khan not looking ethnically Indian is that big a deal.
Previously Khan was an Indian dude played by a Mexican actor of Spanish descent. You could cast him with a Mexican or Spanish actor (like they nearly did) in honour of that, or with an Indian actor as that's what the role was supposed to be. You can certainly say that recasting him with a white British actor is certainly whitewashing. Remember that Cumberbatch is playing the exact same Khan from the TV show and STAR TREK II, just recast due to the age issue (and actor existence failure). He's not a different character or even a reinterpretation of the same character.
Of course, there may be an explanation given: Khan was a famous figure of the STAR TREK timeline, possibly as well-known as say Stalin, if not Hitler, and somebody would recognise him from a history book. A disguse or surgery of some kind can't be ruled out:
Really?!? I have not heard anything about the ending ... what have you heard? Spoiler tags of course :)
MAJOR HEAVY-DUTY SPOILERS:
STAR TREK has a pretty low bar for 'worst moment evaaaaah' candidates (VOYAGER's episode 'Threshold' anyone? Or indeed all of THE FINAL FRONTIER?), but this has to be Top 10 at least.
Really?!? I have not heard anything about the ending ... what have you heard? Spoiler tags of course :)MAJOR HEAVY-DUTY SPOILERS:
** spoiler omitted **
Seriously?! Please tell me you are s%+~ting me! The only good thing I can take away from that is it saves my paycheck to comparatively minor damage going to see the movie would inflict...
Seriously?! Please tell me you are s$#!ting me! The only good thing I can take away from that is it saves my paycheck to comparatively minor damage going to see the movie would inflict...
To be fair, the reviews are also saying that the rest of the film is very entertaining, that Cumberbatch and Quinto are superb and that some of the characters less well-served by the first movie have more moments to shine (particularly Scotty).
This is where the MASS EFFECT 3 comparison comes in: several reviews mention the ending as completely destroying any enjoyment they had of the rest of the movie whilst a lot of other reviews don't even mention it.
Seriously?! Please tell me you are s@&&ting me! The only good thing I can take away from that is it saves my paycheck to comparatively minor damage going to see the movie would inflict...Really?!? I have not heard anything about the ending ... what have you heard? Spoiler tags of course :)MAJOR HEAVY-DUTY SPOILERS:
** spoiler omitted **
I don't know, it might be cool if he had to ...
|
|
I'm not in an uproar about it, but you have to admit that a white guy with a British accent introducing himself as Khan Noonian Singh would get at least one question concerning his name. Hong Kong historically has a large British presence as well, but a white guy named Chow Yun Fat would raise some eyebrows.
What about a black man named Will Smith?
I'm not in an uproar about it, but you have to admit that a white guy with a British accent introducing himself as Khan Noonian Singh would get at least one question concerning his name. Hong Kong historically has a large British presence as well, but a white guy named Chow Yun Fat would raise some eyebrows.What about a black man named Will Smith?
Pretty common in a certain country heavily involved in the African slave trade for a couple of centuries and a long habit of Anglicizing the names of immigrants. Colonialism doesn't usually work the other way round though.
Can we extend that logic to Earth a few centuries from now, after several world wars?
Sure, but without an explanation that it's happened, an audience still looks at things through the lens of its own collective experiences.
I always found that to be pretty silly. And thanks to a recent Doctor Who episode, the only two Russian submarine captains I've seen on film have been Scottish and Irish.
Makes sense. Turnabout is fair play. That'll pay them back for 1066. I'm just not a big enough Trek nerd to remember the reference I suppose.
Lochmonster:
So I scan down the threads and have part of a movie (which I had been avoiding reading about) spoiled. I'm going to see the movie anyway, but Christ why the thread title?!? Why not some non-spoilered title like "Star Trek II enemy revealed" or something that would let me skip the knowledge and merrily go down the boards looking for something I did want to know / discuss? I would not have opened the thread then, and have not read the rest of it now in case there are "other things I was not meant to know" (at least until after I saw the movie), but a Khan reference? You could blat it out for hundreds of lines *in* the thread then and I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN. Are you like this in rl? Do you tell little kids about Santa Claus (spoiler omitted) and otherwise say THINGS YOU SHOULD NOT SAY?
*sigh* I'm used to my rl friends and students doing this. Maybe it's better done in a forum... and I'm not really upset. Life is full of spoilers. They are still, however, annoying.
I don't think Khan not looking ethnically Indian is that big a deal.Previously Khan was an Indian dude played by a Mexican actor of Spanish descent. You could cast him with a Mexican or Spanish actor (like they nearly did) in honour of that, or with an Indian actor as that's what the role was supposed to be. You can certainly say that recasting him with a white British actor is certainly whitewashing. Remember that Cumberbatch is playing the exact same Khan from the TV show and STAR TREK II, just recast due to the age issue (and actor existence failure). He's not a different character or even a reinterpretation of the same character.
Of course, there may be an explanation given: Khan was a famous figure of the STAR TREK timeline, possibly as well-known as say Stalin, if not Hitler, and somebody would recognise him from a history book. A disguse or surgery of some kind can't be ruled out:
Or maybe the ethnicity of the actor really shouldn't matter, just like it really didn't matter when the producers of Thor decided to cast a black guy as a Norse god.
Because we're talking about acting and imagination, right? Isn't it ironic to insist that characters in television and film be played by people of that exact ethnicity? You might as well take issue with Peter Jackson for casting Ian McKellen, because he's not actually a wizard.
Or maybe the ethnicity of the actor really shouldn't matter, just like it really didn't matter when the producers of Thor decided to cast a black guy as a Norse god.
In the case of Thor, the character was not previously established in the film canon. An ultra-powerful alien being from another galaxy can be whatever skin colour he damn well wants to be ;-)
In Khan's case, the character's ethnicity is well-established. Like I said, it would work with an in-universe explanation (facial surgery and temporarily reconstructing your features is a well-established technology in the TREK universe) but without it it's a bit weird.
As for colour-blind casting, sure, it's a nice idea if you go that way right from the start, but it's a bit odder when you re-cast someone that way. And where do you draw the line? When they were doing a biopic of Nelson Mandela, should they do colour-blind casting at that stage?
Because we're talking about acting and imagination, right? Isn't it ironic to insist that characters in television and film be played by people of that exact ethnicity? You might as well take issue with Peter Jackson for casting Ian McKellen, because he's not actually a wizard.
Having seen McKellen's versatility and range, I'm not convinced he isn't a wizard ;-)
In the case of Thor, the character was not previously established in the film canon. An ultra-powerful alien being from another galaxy can be whatever skin colour he damn well wants to be ;-)
Ah, but he was established in both Norse myth and the comics upon which the film was based, yes?
In Khan's case, the character's ethnicity is well-established. Like I said, it would work with an in-universe explanation (facial surgery and temporarily reconstructing your features is a well-established technology in the TREK universe) but without it it's a bit weird.
The character is literally a product of a eugenics program (which presumably involved some level of high-tech gene manipulation). That, by itself, is sufficient explanation for why he could have any particular look.
The character's ethnicity has never really been a crucial aspect of the character. It was certainly noteworthy that Montalban was originally cast, given the social context of the time, but the crucial aspect of Khan has never been "he's Indian," the crucial aspect of Khan is that he's a monomaniacal genius.
As for colour-blind casting, sure, it's a nice idea if you go that way right from the start, but it's a bit odder when you re-cast someone that way. And where do you draw the line? When they were doing a biopic of Nelson Mandela, should they do colour-blind casting at that stage?
Now you're asking a good question, and I think the answer is: "When it's crucial to the character." You can not make a biopic about Nelson Mandela and have him appear "white," because that would make no sense in a movie about a historical figure who was persecuted for being black.
Furthermore, in terms of biopics - where the actor is attempting to portray a real-life historical person - it's generally considered wise to cast actors that resemble the figure they're playing.
Now let me pose a question of my own: if someone were doing a biopic of Michelle Obama, would it be okay to cast Rashida Jones in the main role?
Having seen McKellen's versatility and range, I'm not convinced he isn't a wizard ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Werthead
"In the case of Thor, the character was not previously established in the film canon. An ultra-powerful alien being from another galaxy can be whatever skin colour he damn well wants to be ;-)"
In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canon. :-)
More seriously, I want to see how the character shows up.
Wild Mass Guessing Below.
BBEG Aside: