|
computer parts, in response to your "Hispanic Kirk" idea, it's interesting in the abstract but ultimately difficult to make work practically - at least in the dual sense of both an actor and a character of color, if you want to have Kirk read as Hispanic, in part because the signifiers are all hosed up. Not to mention that the fanbase rage will be ... well, rough. Take a look at how Donald Glover talks about the period of time when it was rumored he was going to be considered to play Spider-man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgko-xReFSs&t=40s On the other hand, black McCoy or literally-any-ethnicity Spock can be done without changing a goddamn thing. jivjov posted:I'm not bait-and-switching anything (trying to figure out when I ever offered you one thing and then provided another). I'm just asking for some justification from the film itself that the film being criticized is actually guilty of anything. The film's explicit textual reliance on Space Seed/Wrath of Khan by virtue of Old Spock. Does the fact that they don't explicitly say "Old Spock is reachable because he was sucked into a black hole in the destruction of Romulus and therefore is in this timeline" obviate it as a premise on which the presence of Old Spock is conditioned? DFu4ever posted:If Worf ends up being played by a white guy under the makeup, is it 'whitewashing'? I'm curious, since pretty much every ethnicity has played a Klingon at this point. Can we at least agree that if Geordi is played by a white guy, someone has hosed up?
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
I would argue that the only previous thing this movie relies on is Trek '09. Its arguably an entirely different series than anything else with Star Trek in the name.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
They literally call up the character from the pre-existing series of films to ask what happened in that series of films.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I would argue that the only previous thing this movie relies on is Trek '09. Its arguably an entirely different series than anything else with Star Trek in the name. Good thing Trek '09 doesn't rely on the pre-Trek '09 series at all, especially not by explicitly tying it to the ongoing plots of the pre-'09 stuff like, for instance, Spock's involvement with the Romulans. Oh wait. But yeah, explicitly contacting Old Spock puts the pin in that balloon.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:They literally call up the character from the pre-existing series of films to ask what happened in that series of films. I'm arguing that Old Spock's recollections may not be accurate it this parallel timeline/universe
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm arguing that Old Spock's recollections may not be accurate it this parallel timeline/universe Do you have anything to support that contention given that the weight of the text and the metatext is against that?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Do you have anything to support that contention given that the weight of the text and the metatext is against that? I already framed my arguments. I can tell that I'm apparently the only one that feels that way, so I'll just drop it here.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm arguing that Old Spock's recollections may not be accurate it this parallel timeline/universe What the gently caress is wrong with you? What could possibly make you think this.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you? What could possibly make you think this. I already made my argument in a previous post. Please feel free to check it out. (and I would appreciate a slightly kinder tone. I've done nothing to offend you)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I already made my argument in a previous post. Please feel free to check it out. (and I would appreciate a slightly kinder tone. I've done nothing to offend you) You can't make poo poo up when the movies explicitly say the opposite. I will also use whatever tone I want when I talk to you.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:You can't make poo poo up when the movies explicitly say the opposite. I will also use whatever tone I want when I talk to you. Could you please point me to what I made up? I framed my argument that the first film in this series established that things are a bit different even before the "Narada Arrives" divergence point. (I can also cite phasers being bolts instead of beams as another difference, if you like). If nobody else agrees with me, that's fine, but this is a discussion thread and I felt like posing a discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you? What could possibly make you think this.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
I made a crude drawing for you In Space Seed, it is explicitly stated Khan is Indian. The Khan that woke up in Space seed is the same one that they found in this movie. He's Indian, no ifs ands or buts. It doesn't have to be stated in the movie because it's already implied.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Is this sarcasm? We can look at the fact that Khan is clearly a different dude and that things look different. Iron Man 2 is not in the same setting/universe as Iron Man 1 because War Machine is clearly now a different dude. And don't get me started on the narrative implications of three different Hulk actors. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Could you please point me to what I made up? I framed my argument that the first film in this series established that things are a bit different even before the "Narada Arrives" divergence point. (I can also cite phasers being bolts instead of beams as another difference, if you like). If nobody else agrees with me, that's fine, but this is a discussion thread and I felt like posing a discussion. The film presents Old Spock as reliable - and gives us no reason to question it without incorporating atextual sources of questionable merit - and you're using it to try to absolve the film of its shittiness when it comes to the use of Khan and the whitewashing of Khan. Your point of contention is "Khan is no longer textually Indian, because it's not the same Khan" and that is contradicted by the film itself. But believe me, nothing is more productive to a conversation about how a film hosed up majorly on race than to get bogged down in what is or is not canon, which totally isn't a smokescreen thrown up to evade very justified concerns, much like the initial "oh no, it's not Khan!" poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:I made a crude drawing for you I will again state my argument that there is evidence enough to suggest that the universe Trek '09 and Into Darkness takes place in is different from "Your father's Star Trek" even before the divergence point of Nero and the Narada arriving. I realize that you don't agree with me and think that I'm incorrect, but I've posted my evidence and thoughts on the topic, so asking me things like "What could possibly make me think that" demonstrates that you're not interested in having a discussion with me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Because of a warp nacelle. That's your smoking gun. It's hard to have any sort of discussion with you when you bring up dumb poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
You're mistaking casting and design choices for textual evidence. In the canon-obsessed world, if the interior paint job of a spaceship changes between the 1960s version and the 2000s version, it apparently counts as an Important Narrative Fact.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Because of a warp nacelle. That's your smoking gun. It's hard to have any sort of discussion with you when you bring up dumb poo poo like that. Also there are ships with one warp nacelle in Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock. It is just poo poo shown in the background but it is there. bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Because of a warp nacelle. That's your smoking gun. It's hard to have any sort of discussion with you when you bring up dumb poo poo like that. Starship design being "dumb poo poo" is certainly a valid opinion to hold, however, its what I've made my case around. If you don't like it, that's perfectly fine, ut there's no reason to personally attack me over it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Starship design being "dumb poo poo" is certainly a valid opinion to hold, however, its what I've made my case around. If you don't like it, that's perfectly fine, ut there's no reason to personally attack me over it. It's right above you: the single-nacelle designs appear in both Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It's right above you: the single-nacelle designs appear in both Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock. I'm not familiar with them. However, that would pretty well perforate my argument, I'll have to look into that.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm not familiar with them. However, that would pretty well perforate my argument, I'll have to look into that. I feel dirty, but: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Saladin_class http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Freedom_class http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Hermes_class
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I feel dirty, but: Huh, well. Argument based on ship design withdrawn then.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Why would you even? Why would anyone twist themselves into pedantic knots trying to justify not simply casting an Indian actor (of which there are a ton) as an Indian character? Why is anybody even arguing this point at all?!?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Why would you even? Why would anyone twist themselves into pedantic knots trying to justify not simply casting an Indian actor (of which there are a ton) as an Indian character? Why is anybody even arguing this point at all?!? I say this with the most sincerity that I can project via the internet, I honestly think you (and others) are getting far too worked up.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I say this with the most sincerity that I can project via the internet, I honestly think you (and others) are getting far too worked up. Well, with all due respect and no offense intended...I really don't think it's your (or anyone's) place to say how important things should and shouldn't be taken. Yeah, the casting of a nerd movie in and of itself isn't a big deal, but it's symptomatic of a much larger, more pervasive problem.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
I'm not saying the issue itself is or isn't important. Its the tone a lot of posts have been taking that makes me think people are becoming far too personally (and not intellectually) invested in the discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm not saying the issue itself is or isn't important. Its the tone a lot of posts have been taking that makes me think people are becoming far too personally (and not intellectually) invested in the discussion. The thing is, for those of us with skin in the game, it can be personal, especially with the lengths that people go to excuse the basic acknowledgment that this happened and was a problem. For those of us who are watching as characters of color are whitewashed and real people of color are marginalized, a discussion over how many motherfucking nacelles go on a fictional goddamn starship seems less "intellectual" and more "masturbatory."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
I can't see an everyday bollywood actor as threatening. Now cast a Ghurka as Khan and have him go around with a Kukui loving poo poo up, killing people left and right, in full traditional garb? Holy poo poo. That would be so terrifying. Ghurkas are the most ferocious warriors, and Khan going melee on Klingons decapitating them left and right? Daaamn.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I will again state my argument that there is evidence enough to suggest that the universe Trek '09 and Into Darkness takes place in is different from "Your father's Star Trek" even before the divergence point of Nero and the Narada arriving. I realize that you don't agree with me and think that I'm incorrect, but I've posted my evidence and thoughts on the topic, so asking me things like "What could possibly make me think that" demonstrates that you're not interested in having a discussion with me. See, I just don't think there's enough evidence of this. Literally every change in the design of things we see on screen, the technology, society, etc can be linked to "changes that were caused by the arrival of the Narada." Even if you don't buy into the deleted scenes and believe Nero was chilling in space incognito for 20 years, not captured by the Klingons, and never met anyone, just the sensor data from the Kelvin survivors alone could cause massive changes. It's basic Prime Directive stuff. Like how the Iotians changed their entire society to mirror Gangland America, circa 1935 based on a book. Or what will no doubt happen to the Niburans. The fact that we see models of Cochrane's missle ship and the NX-01 in Marcus' office corroborate that. The only things that might contradict it are the Kelvin and Khan. The Kelvin *might* be a bit too advanced to come between the NX-01 and Pike's ship in The Cage. But then again, the NX-01 itself often looked more "advanced" than The Cage or TOS era Trek when you got down to it. Khan looks very different, and while certain people in this thread have not convinced me that there was some horrible and intentional "whitewashing" of Khan as part of an advanced Hollywood conspiracy (though they have successfully convinced me that THEY think so and are very concerned), I will agree he doesn't look like Montalban. But then again, Zefram Cochrane as played by James Cromwell looked and acted NOTHING like Glenn Corbitt's portrayal in TOS. Now, there's a lot of convoluted rationale behind that, like maybe he was exposed to radiation in WWIII so he looked gaunt and The Companion restored him to a younger and more muscular self. But in the end, sometimes you just have to throw you hands up and decide what you'll take as canon. For me, I can either believe that Cocharane is the same guy, that "Metamorphosis" never happened, or that "First Contact" never happened. I go with the first. I can either believe the Kelvin after the NX-01 or not. I choose to believe it. I can either believe Cumberbatch is the same guy as Montalban, or not. I choose to believe he is. I'm sure there will be some fanon canon explanation about how if you can surgically alter Kirk to look like a Romulan in TOS, Marcus could have surgically altered Khan so nobody who was a history geek said "HOLY poo poo, THAT'S A 20TH CENTURY DICTATOR" if they saw Harrison strolling around London. Since in his words and actions he was pretty "Khan-like" to me, I'm gonna be relaxed about it. But I really don't feel there's enough evidence to say that we are on some other, further diverged timeline. If you stretch, you might say that since things like "City On The Edge of Forever" never happened, or Kirk probably won't ever go back and interact with Gary Seven, so maybe a genetically different "Khan" was created and made leader, as well as many other changes pre-Narada. But the simplest explanation, and the one the producers seem to be implying, is that all changes were after the arrival of the Narada.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm not saying the issue itself is or isn't important. Its the tone a lot of posts have been taking that makes me think people are becoming far too personally (and not intellectually) invested in the discussion. Okay...? This is something people are right to get emotionally invested in. People should be pissed about this. It's not just a big problem, it's a stupid problem. For whatever reason Hollywood has internalized the notion that viewing audiences can't handle ethnic diversity in their leading roles. People of colour aren't cast without a reason (usually fulfilling some stereotype). That's insulting to most people's intelligence. For the rest, like Mr. "Dots, Not Feathers" from this thread? gently caress 'em. EDIT: In response to the post above mine: nobody thinks there's a willful, conscious conspiracy in Hollywood. The truth is much worse and more insidious. We, as a society, have internalized the idea of Caucasian as the "default". If someone who isn't white is cast for a role, there usually has to be some thematic or textual justification for it. Obviously the reverse does not apply. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Considering the history of the British involvement in India, having a guy with an Indian name be a white British man doesn't seem like a stretch.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Considering the history of the British involvement in India, having a guy with an Indian name be a white British man doesn't seem like a stretch. Or the fact there is an English man with a French name.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Did you guys watch an alternate movie where instead of calling up Old Spock to hear him confirm that this was the same man from Space Seed and WoK, the crew dug through some archives and identified Khan as a caucasian British colonial despot? Are we dealing with a Clue alternate-reel situation?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Considering the history of the British involvement in India, having a guy with an Indian name be a white British man doesn't seem like a stretch. The opposite is more likely. My wife's family has a Nigel, a Wesley, and a Shelby.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I can't see an everyday bollywood actor as threatening. It amazes me that someone who has defended the lovely racial politics of this movie can so totally miss the point of one of the few examples of STID getting it right with regard to racial politics - Sulu, an Asian man - a demographic that has regularly been the target of whitewashing and pervasively targeted for portrayals as non-threatening and desexualized - is set up where McCoy questions his ability to handle the pressures of command, takes charge and is just hard as a motherfucker. Between that and the way he subtly called out JJ Abrams & co. during the film's publicity, John Cho is the 2013 MVP. You have said that you think an Aryan ubermensch is "more powerful" than a nonwhite superhuman, but let's rephrase your statement outside your bizarre Orientalist lens: "I can't see an everyday Hollywood actor as threatening. Now, cast a 19th century British rifleman going around with a halberd loving poo poo up, killing people left and right, in full Beefeater garb? Holy poo poo. That would be so terrifying. Riflemen are the most ferocious warriors, and Kenneth Nicholas Sansbury going melee on Klingons decapitating them left and right? Daaamn." Do you see how weird that is? That's what exoticizing looks like. Ho Chi Mint posted:Considering the history of the British involvement in India, having a guy with an Indian name be a white British man doesn't seem like a stretch. bobkatt013 posted:Or the fact there is an English man with a French name. As has been said repeatedly, that there is a "plausible canon explanation" (even though it requires us to disregard that canonically Khan isn't white) doesn't actually resolve the politics of casting white here. The issue has never been "it's not realistic," it's been "this is a regression for characters of color, actors of color, and people of color." There's no reason that Uhura can't be white, given European colonialism in Africa, or Sulu can't be white - or that Kirk or McCoy can't be black. It's just that these "it's perfectly plausible!" racebending incidents tend to only run in one direction.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Saw this a few evenings ago with my girlfriend. I have the Star Trek background and know about the older series/movies. She is completely new to every last bit of the Trek universe and this was her first ever exposure to Trek. We both absolutely loved it and we both had a completely different experience. I got the references and the callbacks, whereas she thought it was great fun and quite a spectacle. We both thought that the best thing was the warp effect of the enterprise (those blue trails are gorgeous). We also thought that the Vengeance catching up with the Enterprise during the warp and attacking it was genuinely unsettling. There was something powerful about the way it suddenly loomed and let a barrage of weaponry at the Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
I wanted to compile a (non-comprehensive) list of real arguments that have been made in this thread in favour of Cumberbatch's casting as Khan: -Indian actors should go to Bollywood to get roles -Trying to find an Indian actor to play Khan would be like trying to find a real Klingon or Vulcan to play those alien races -Nacelles are different, ergo Khan is white -Khan's actor didn't match his character's race in 1967, therefore Khan's actor should NEVER match the character's race (but white is OK) -Khan can maybe not be Indian because *selective canon lawyering* -Khan has always been white -John Cho is Korean and not Japanese, therefore all cross-casting is equally okay -They tried casting this hispanic man but it didn't work out *shrug* what more do you want -I can't imagine an Indian character crushing a man's head, but I can accept the skinniest white man in the world doing it -If this attitude goes too far, white actors won't get white roles anymore Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 00:27 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
What about Khan's character makes him Indian? He has an Indian name, and the historian in Space Seed says he a Sikh, but neither of the actors that portray him do anything with the performance that suggest he is Indian. How does being an Indian inform his character? If you changed the name would it change the character at all?
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:17
|
|