|
A Hispanic Kirk? That will bust stereotypes. Who's ever heard of an impulsive, hot-headed, constantly horny Spaniard? But seriously whitewashing is horrible. I'm Italian/Spanish/French, and I barely see anyone who looks like me on screen. And I code as 'white' in most places. They should have mixed up everyone's races. It was a bit odd how they had to make them the same as the TOS cast. Count Chocula fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Yes it's a bit odd they had to make them look the same as the TOS cast when they literally are supposed to be the TOS cast but younger. A bit odd... I'm all for ethnical distribution in movies reflecting real life or at least having some sense of fairness, but I don't think "keep established characters the race they were" is a particularly controversial position regardless of the races involved.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Cumberpatch isn't American though, like Montalban was not from the USA, which was my point. I agree a white person with a Spanish accent is not as favored in America as a white person with a British or English accent. So while it is "whitewashing" I think it is pretty minor.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:32
|
|
MrBims posted:Yes it's a bit odd they had to make them look the same as the TOS cast when they literally are supposed to be the TOS cast but younger. A bit odd... http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-5-most-insulting-defenses-nerd-racism/ It is, because the race/appearance of the character often doesn't matter. Especially when white is seen as 'the default'.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-5-most-insulting-defenses-nerd-racism/ Race and appearance does matter when we're talking about characters in sequels and prequels, etc. You don't cast Kirk as white in one movie and then black in the next, just as an author won't write a character as white in one book and black in the next. Don't give me a Cracked link, give me an actual argument.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
When casting for a movie, which ostensibly has the purpose "to entertain", does "quality-of-performance" enter the equation at all? Hypothetical situation: casting for a character of unclear race (past depictions haven't been consistent), and your top two auditioners are a Hispanic man and a British man. You decide on the Hispanic man to play the role, but due to other circumstances, he has to pull out. Is it racist to then go to your second choice?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'd say the problem here is that 'a character's race' is taken as being a variance from the default of 'white', which is the big complaint. The problem is when you have characters who are black/Hispanic/Asian/etc. who then snap back to 'the default' - and why is 'a white guy' the default? But Khan inherently lacks any sort of solid, meaningful centerpoint. Without a defined centerpoint, defining variation is impossible. He's played by a Mexican. The first time he's featured, there's two lines that say he's Indian. The second time he's featured, he visually doesn't look Mexican nor Indian. If you're forgive the analogy, there's not enough handholds for me to reasonably climb a wall that says "If you have Khan, he's an Indian", as if its an inherent and immutable facet of the character. Nessus posted:This is particularly notable because a lot of what made Star Trek special for a lot of people is that it was originally cast with this topic in mind, making it particularly galling to see. Gene Roddenberry fought for blacks, Asians and even Godless Communists to be on the bridge of the best starship of the future, and so 'whoops well we cast Britishus Cumwhitehonkey for the non-white romantic villain' stings. Gene had Khan named the way he was because because he was trying to get in touch with an old war buddy. Without that, we would have had a nordic character named Harold Erricsen, John Ericssen, or Ragnar Thorwald. Wasn't McGiver's line about him being a Sikh a voiceover line?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
jivjov posted:When casting for a movie, which ostensibly has the purpose "to entertain", does "quality-of-performance" enter the equation at all? "Past depictions haven't been consistent" is playing a bit fast and loose with the truth. MisterBibs posted:But Khan inherently lacks any sort of solid, meaningful centerpoint. Without a defined centerpoint, defining variation is impossible. He's played by a Mexican. The first time he's featured, there's two lines that say he's Indian. The second time he's featured, he visually doesn't look Mexican nor Indian. What does a Mexican look like? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
edit Forget it, it was a good sci fi movie. euphronius fucked around with this message at 04:47 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:45
|
|
MrBims posted:Race and appearance does matter when we're talking about characters in sequels and prequels, etc. You don't cast Kirk as white in one movie and then black in the next, just as an author won't write a character as white in one book and black in the next. Don't give me a Cracked link, give me an actual argument. They did that in the first four Batman movies. Harvey Dent was black in Batman Returns and white in Batman Forever (when he got a larger role). And 'canon' (which is bullshit nitpickery aside), more than 40 years have passed between TOS and the new movies. They exist in utterly different contexts. What was progressive then might not be so now. Why not a black Spock? Why do we still have Chekov's joke-accent?
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:46
|
|
jivjov posted:When casting for a movie, which ostensibly has the purpose "to entertain", does "quality-of-performance" enter the equation at all? Doesn't systematic injustice mean its more likely they'll be more white actors auditioning or being put in the top choices?
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Doesn't systematic injustice mean its more likely they'll be more white actors auditioning or being put in the top choices? Basically - see how people in this very thread are talking about how they can't perceive Indians as sufficiently imposing. Whiteness is infinitely flexible, color is inherently limited.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:They did that in the first four Batman movies. Harvey Dent was black in Batman Returns and white in Batman Forever (when he got a larger role). And 'canon' (which is bullshit nitpickery aside), more than 40 years have passed between TOS and the new movies. They exist in utterly different contexts. What was progressive then might not be so now. Why not a black Spock? Why do we still have Chekov's joke-accent? An example of one of the worst movies of all time (ok, not really, but it's a stinker) doing it isn't evidence that it is something movies should do. Something like 99.999% of other established franchises keep to the rule, Batman Forever and STID are the outliers here. You're going to have to come up with something better than Batman Forever as a reason why it should change.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why I'm a bad person for liking this new movie? Went and saw it earlier and when I came back all thrilled people were treating me like it was wrong for me to enjoy Khan or whatever. (I've never really seen Star Trek before but apparently he's a big deal?)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
ThisIsACoolGuy posted:Can someone tell me why I'm a bad person for liking this new movie? The Warszawa posted:Basically - see how people in this very thread are talking about how they can't perceive Indians as sufficiently imposing. Whiteness is infinitely flexible, color is inherently limited.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
ThisIsACoolGuy posted:Can someone tell me why I'm a bad person for liking this new movie? There's nothing wrong with liking this movie. I liked this movie. A lot. Liking it doesn't mean I can't recognize that it has problems, and the fact that it has problems doesn't make anyone a bad person for liking it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
ThisIsACoolGuy posted:Can someone tell me why I'm a bad person for liking this new movie? No idea, I certainly haven't said that and I don't think anyone else has either. I enjoyed the movie - it was fun. But the whitewashing bullshit does leave a bad aftertaste, and it is a big loving problem, and it should be fought tooth and nail. The problem with racist poo poo is that it's pervasive in media - which means that good and enjoyable stuff exhibits it too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
While it's not really relevent to the racism discussion, I was a little dissapointed they had Khan just go crazy at the end. I liked the idea that given different circumstances, Kirk and Khan could work together to beat down someone who'd screwed them both. And then part ways amicably. Funny thing is re: race, they could conceivably retcon this in a future film and just have it be that Harrison decided to use Khan's name for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Forum Actuary posted:While it's not really relevent to the racism discussion, I was a little dissapointed they had Khan just go crazy at the end. I liked the idea that given different circumstances, Kirk and Khan could work together to beat down someone who'd screwed them both. Unlike Khan's insanity in WoK, here it made sense to me. He learned his crew (which he considered family) weren't killed, manages to get them returned to him, then is forced a second time to cope with their apparent loss. Not only that, this time he gets to watch his people dying, as far as he knows.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Forum Actuary posted:While it's not really relevent to the racism discussion, I was a little dissapointed they had Khan just go crazy at the end. I liked the idea that given different circumstances, Kirk and Khan could work together to beat down someone who'd screwed them both.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What does a Mexican look like? Like that isn't a baited question. No matter what anyone answers you'll call them racist, you loving rear end.  Between 4'3" and 7'4" with any number of various skintones, accents, eye and hair colors. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 07:45 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Like that isn't a baited question. No matter what anyone answers you'll call them racist, you loving rear end. By God, it's almost like the very contention that "Mexicans" look a certain way is loaded with racist shorthand that people unconsciously internalize and put forward because that's how white supremacy in American culture works! You've cracked the code! Surely you can see that arguing that Montalbán doesn't "look Mexican" is problematic, to say the least. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 07:47 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:By God, it's almost like the very contention that "Mexicans" look a certain way is loaded with racist shorthand that people unconsciously internalize and put forward because that's how white supremacy in American culture works! You've cracked the code! What the gently caress do you mean white supremacy in American culture? When you say white supremacy I think of those worthless dogs in the KKK. People that I don't consider human, much less American. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:What the gently caress do you mean white supremacy in American culture? When you say white supremacy I think of those worthless dogs in the KKK. People that I don't consider human, much less American. Yes, it may be easy to say all of racism is a Klan rally or some assholes with a rope and a hard-on for killing black people, but that really lets the whole range of institutions and structures that lift up white people and grind down nonwhite people on several axes. For instance, paper-bag testing nonwhite people or whitewashing characters of color. I mean, it's easy to point and say "racism is them, over there," but you yourself - in what I assume is the absence of any personally held malice towards people of color - have bent over backwards to justify whitewashing here. Racism isn't just the easy calls, and it's not even about individuals being racists, but doing racist things and supporting racist things and defending racist things. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:12 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
I got back from seeing the a few hours ago and my only real experience with Star Trek is the 2009 movie and the Plinkett reviews of it and the TNG films. So yeah, not a Trekkie, but I know what a Tribble is and I have respect for what made the franchise resonate with so many people back in the 40s, and what made TNG so great after it found its footing. I loved the hell out of the 2009 movie. Sure it had its flaws, but the absolute perfect casting (I like Syler's Spock) and wonderful visual style made up for it. It wasn't a deep meditation on an ethical question, but I didn't need it to be. It was an awesome origin story, and seeing Kirk sit down in the chair at the end was wonderful. So I actually had no idea this was coming out this summer until like a week ago. I had seen no trailer footage, all I knew was "Khan." And I was psyched to see Pine's Kirk be forced to face the no-win scenario, see him cope with failure. I thought when Pike was telling Kirk about how he had gotten by on luck that we were going to get to see this. But no, we got Kirk basically going through the same arc he did last time, except this time with a dramatic heroic sacrifice, and holy poo poo they really did do the KHAAAAN scream why would you do that. I felt like the film was building towards a climactic battle with Khan that was a bit more nuanced, where he and Kirk would engage in a battle of wits via a starship battle and Kirk's gut and Spock's logic would play off each other to save the day. But nope, we got Spock and Khan punching each other on a fast moving thing miles above the ground because THAT'S EXCITING (no it isn't). I am a lot less interested in Episode VII than I was this afternoon. SpiderHyphenMan fucked around with this message at 08:14 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yes, it may be easy to say all of racism is a Klan rally or some assholes with a rope and a hard-on for killing black people, but that really lets the whole range of institutions and structures that lift up white people and grind down nonwhite people on several axes. For instance, paper-bag testing nonwhite people or whitewashing characters of color. If I see someone paper bag testing I'll probably deck them. Anyway, back to the movie. What happens when the Romulan star goes supernova and takes out the galaxy? Did they save any red matter from the first film? Now that Section 31 is in the picture, what will become of the Planet Killer? I can see that becoming a hell of a plot point if they can control it. And did Chekov do anything in this movie besides stay in Engineering?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:If I see someone paper bag testing I'll probably deck them. Anyway, back to the movie. That's literally what insinuating that a Mexican doesn't "look Mexican" is. This isn't to say that what MisterBims (I think) was saying was coming from a desire to paper-bag test, but s/he is working off a media depiction of "what a Mexican looks like" that is cultivated and promulgated by white-dominated structures without regard to reality.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
It would have been really dope to reunite Harold and Kumar
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This isn't to say that what MisterBims (I think) was saying was coming from a desire to paper-bag test, but s/he is working off a media depiction of "what a Mexican looks like" that is cultivated and promulgated by white-dominated structures without regard to reality. Yeah, no. That's pretty silly. The point I was trying to assert was that Khan's character, and how that character is presented to the audience in WoK, is one of ethnic neutrality, for lack of a better term. There's nothing in the movie that informs or asserts ethnicity, one way or another. It is that ambiguity that informs so strongly. STID's Khan is an entirely different beast of a man. A cold, calculating shell covering a brutal, almost bestial inner core. Cumberbatch fits that role perfectly. My experiences mirror the one in this post. Why does it upset you to understand that what you consider a strong underpinning to be merely an afterthought for others?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Uhhh maybe because treating this sort of thing as an "afterthought" is callous and demonstrably results in erasure from media, among other issues. The reason folks of colour are so underrepresented in media overall is because representation is treated as an "afterthought", and roles default to white (which is seen as "neutral" for hosed up reasons) a staggering majority of the time. Choosing not to think about these things doesn't automatically produce fairness, it produces stasis. Star Trek has a reputation for doing a better job than that (even if there were missteps at times), which makes the casting extra weird and disappointing. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 09:55 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The point I was trying to assert was that Khan's character, and how that character is presented to the audience in WoK, is one of ethnic neutrality, for lack of a better term. Except WOK is neither the first nor the only appearance of the character.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Riso posted:Except WOK is neither the first nor the only appearance of the character. You know, if you wanted to develop it you could credibly argue that Cumberbatch hosed up by being all Sherlock instead of... acting like Khan? Unlike Spock or Kirk, there is no difference in Khan's background, and it seems likely his temporary employment would not substantially impact the personality of that kind of a guy. Of course it's quite likely that Khan behaved in a similar style (if one informed by the style and tastes of a show produced nearly fifty years ago) so, if so, fair enough then.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I got back from seeing the a few hours ago and my only real experience with Star Trek is the 2009 movie and the Plinkett reviews of it and the TNG films. So yeah, not a Trekkie, but I know what a Tribble is and I have respect for what made the franchise resonate with so many people back in the 40s, and what made TNG so great after it found its footing. Yeah, me too, man. Except I am quite the Trekkie, but that movie was just.. it just wasn't Trek, it wasn't for me. Turn around.. Why? For no reason, because the only reason I'm here is because I'm cute and what is important now is everyone see lots of my skin Ok..
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
I know they'll never take this angle because movies still require "good guys," but it'd be amazing if this schism is what 'caused' the mirror universe (yes, I know it existed in 'Enterprise'), and *does* lead to a more militarized version of Starfleet full of other Admiral Robocop-style xenophobes.SpiderHyphenMan posted:I am a lot less interested in Episode VII than I was this afternoon. What worries me the most is that Abrams seems to think he has to jam fan service and homages into poo poo. The alternative is even worse - that he's a lazy prick who thinks putting in those "chuckle moments" that elbow you in the ribs is a good way to bridge acts and scenes. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 10:45 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You know, if you wanted to develop it you could credibly argue that Cumberbatch hosed up by being all Sherlock instead of... acting like Khan? Unlike Spock or Kirk, there is no difference in Khan's background, and it seems likely his temporary employment would not substantially impact the personality of that kind of a guy. If we just talk about the portrayal, then yes, he didn't do Khan. There was no pride, arrogance, or apparent superiority in his behaviour. I also found that while he showed a certain intensity, he lacked passion. BIG HEADLINE posted:I know they'll never take this angle because movies still require "good guys," but it'd be amazing if this schism is what 'caused' the mirror universe (yes, I know it existed in 'Enterprise'), and *does* lead to a more militarized version of Starfleet full of other Admiral Robocop-style xenophobes. I am sorry to tell you but they showed the split already in the Enterprise tv show, and it was basically people shooting the Vulcans after they landed on Earth the first time. The show is still canon in JJTrek's timeline, confirmed by the model in Robocops office. Riso fucked around with this message at 10:45 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
I don't think JJ or any of the new writers give half a poo poo about "canon." And neither do I for that matter. The time travel stuff was a clever way to set up a new universe, but let it just be that. Let the new movies be their own thing without decades of backstory and confusing canon weighing it down. Maybe the red matter black hole event caused ripples in time like Superboy paunching crisis. Plus, isn't like 60% of all previous Start Trek stuff complete garbage? I like Trek a lot and even I'll admit that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
It's cool how when the issue can't be dismissed as imaginary it's instantly collapsed to being about the ~intent~ of Abrams or you, the goon reading this very post. There's all these aggrieved and outraged responses to accusations of personal, avowed racism that no one has actually made.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Unmature posted:I don't think JJ or any of the new writers give half a poo poo about "canon." And neither do I for that matter. The time travel stuff was a clever way to set up a new universe, but let it just be that. Let the new movies be their own thing without decades of backstory and confusing canon weighing it down. 20% maybe
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Riso posted:If we just talk about the portrayal, then yes, he didn't do Khan. This was also a Khan who was a bit humbled. He's been held a prisoner of Secrion 31 for a year, forced to design weapons. Every other time was see him he manages to gain the upper hand and steal a starship in a day or so of meeting Starfleet officers.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
I find this line of discussion uninteresting because it seems like multicultural identity politics without much concern for the broader struggle against oppression. What is the end-goal? Khan has been totally ruined from the beginning, being (in Space Seed) a bizarre clusterfuck of 'oriental' signifiers played by a blatantly not-Indian dude. It was pretty much blackface. Wrath Of Khan subtly (and tastefully, and rightly) retconned this by just having Montalban 'play himself'. Khan became a Latino dude with a unique name - no turbans, no over-application of tan makeup... A large part of this debate seems based on it being Memory Alpha canon that Khan (the objective virtual person within the Star Trek simulation-universe) is "probably a Sikh from the north of India". This overlooks that the scene in the original episode - where they actually stop to explain to the audience what race the character is supposed to be - is a loving embarrassment. Folks are oblivious to Wrath Of Khan's tasteful solution (because Wrath Of Khan doesn't have any clumsy exposition telling us Khan's official, canonical race). It's obvious that Into Darkness is following Wrath Of Khan's retcon of Space Seed, and ignoring the episode almost-entirely. This makes the crucial point that Khan was never actually an Indian character. The canon was based on the blackface. The canon lied. It is unfortunate that they didn't get another Mexican dude for the reboot, but it's very hard for me to get worked up about it when Into Darkness' critique of the series' liberal ideology is so strong. And Cumberbatch gives us a queer Khan, seemingly based on David Bowie's character in The Man Who Fell To Earth. Tony Montana posted:Yeah, me too, man. Except I am quite the Trekkie, but that movie was just.. it just wasn't Trek, it wasn't for me. This is another example of tropes being identified, in place of more nuanced analysis. There is a clear difference between how Kirk treats women in the beginning of the film, and how he treats Carol, who chastises him and demands that he respect women. There's a power dynamic being expressed in that scene, and it's not one that Kirk is on the upper side of. Carol's inclusion as a new part of the crew is the biggest sign that this new 'five year mission' will be very different from the previous one. Imagine the original series with significantly less alien-loving. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:32 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 16:28
|
|
