|
Korak posted:Bold mine. I think JJ has enough pull to cast whomever he wants in this movie. He should have cast a non-white person if they are indeed going for Khan. It really is this simple. Is it much better to have a charismatic ethnic minority actor be cast in the role of villain who is brutally suppressed by the white uber-captain/sex symbol?
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:I have a feeling this is going to be like the last movie, where it's honestly not about the villain at all. The entire film was all about Kirk, and Spock. So i'm going to probably ignore whatever is decided with Khan as a character. Just calling it right now, nothing special will be done with Khan, it'll be purely fan service. I'm more focused on the Klingons being in this, hell yes. Well, even TWOK wasn't rreeallly about Khan at all. It was about Kirk's mid-life crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Whitewashing is an ongoing issue in American cinema and every instance should have attention drawn to it. I want to party with you. Personally, I am tired of every other CD discussion devolving into a discussion of racism. Yes, devolving. You could almost take bets about which post will include the word "racism" in any discussion of any movie on this forum. There isn't a boogeyman inside every closet. It gets tiring.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
GORDON posted:I want to party with you. Nothing is stopping you from raising another topic. I guess complaining about the current topic is more fun?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Nothing is stopping you from raising another topic. I guess complaining about the current topic is more fun? It isn't fun at all. How about just starting a new thread called ALL MOVIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS/ARE RACIST and confine all the extreme stretches of racist perception there, instead of having almost every discussion of every movie ever devolve into a discussion about how such-and-such is racist. Rational people will know to avoid the "racism" thread, and the rest of us can discuss fun movies without the guilty "white people suck" undertones. Exception to the rule: some movies discuss "fascism" instead of "racism." See: the Avengers threads. Either way, still a downer and most people don't like it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Or maybe we can do like I'm fairly sure everyone has done and say 'well I'm still gonna see it and all but this was a kinda crap move'? Alright let's change the topic. Klingons, gonna have ridges or smooth heads?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Alright let's change the topic. Klingons, gonna have ridges or smooth heads? Depressions, and no genitals.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Alright let's change the topic. Klingons, gonna have ridges or smooth heads? A part of me really wants them to have smooth heads. But if the cut footage from Star Trek is any indication, this will not be the case.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:
Abrams is going to cast non-disfigured people as Klingon and just use makeup, this is a hideous example of not-disfigurated-washing in Hollywood and is disgusting  (I'm joking please no one get mad)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Or maybe we can do like I'm fairly sure everyone has done and say 'well I'm still gonna see it and all but this was a kinda crap move'? I agree, it was a crap move for Benicio Del Toro to refuse a role the film makers all but handed to him. Now we get to have not so subtle parting shots about how racist it is for a white actor to do a good job at an audition and get a role in a movie. Mix of ridges and smooth, if only to see the crazier Trek fans flip their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
GORDON posted:It isn't fun at all. How about just starting a new thread called ALL MOVIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS/ARE RACIST and confine all the extreme stretches of racist perception there, instead of having almost every discussion of every movie ever devolve into a discussion about how such-and-such is racist. Rational people will know to avoid the "racism" thread, and the rest of us can discuss fun movies without the guilty "white people suck" undertones. Gee, sorry movies are complicated. Maybe you can start your own message board where you tell people what to post so you always look right.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
I'd like the Klingons to act more like they did in the old series. The "we are HONORABLE WARRIORS" stuff got played out quickly enough, it'd be interesting to see a throwback to them as Cold War stand-ins.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Depressions, and no genitals. Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place, Boogaleeboo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
GORDON posted:Rational people will know to avoid the "racism" thread, and the rest of us can discuss fun movies without the guilty "white people suck" undertones. Ahahaha, if you honestly think there's any "white people suck" undertones in this thread, you do not get to call yourself rational.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Once I really considered the internet, I realized someone must have written a story about whatever the poo poo that crazy alien does with his knees. That was a sad day.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Gee, sorry movies are complicated. Maybe you can start your own message board where you tell people what to post so you always look right. Oh, you're right. Claiming every movie ever made is racist and/or fascist is the height of intellectual discussion. I can make an argument that the Toy Story movies are based on the results of voodoo soul-stealing magic, but that doesn't make my argument not-stupid. As for the claim that the actor playing Khan is "white washing, and should be discussed," it's a fictional character, and didn't really exist. "White washing" implies deliberate intent. The character was never even played by an Asian/Indian guy. The actor, "Long Dong Silver" had a pirate name, but I never believed he was an actual pirate. Sometimes claims of "racism" and "fascism" are just stupid. If the people claiming it are allowed to have their opinion, then I am allowed to have mine. Claims of "racism," especially in a Star Trek movie, are 99% stupid. Stop oppressing me.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I'd like the Klingons to act more like they did in the old series. The "we are HONORABLE WARRIORS" stuff got played out quickly enough, it'd be interesting to see a throwback to them as Cold War stand-ins. I watched all of TNG last year, and lots of it is still pretty fresh in my mind. I thought the episodes that really showed what the Klingon culture was all about, were pretty good. I mean it was a lot of "we are HONORABLE WARRIORS", but it was more complex then that too. The Klington characters, especially Worf, had a lot of different conflicts with this that made them really great characters. That said, i'm not expecting this movie to go that route. They will likely just be bad guys with not a lot of depth. Honestly, can we just drop the Khan stuff? It's clearly not going to go anywhere, and we are discussing something that might not even be in the movie at all. Hell, the Klingons might not even be in this film either. We are just discussing rumors. Although the Klingons are very likely (Khan less so) because Abrams said from the start, after Star Trek, that he really wanted them in the next film. I said come in! fucked around with this message at 04:37 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
As someone who has watched a lot of Star Trek and even own one of the Star Trek encyclopedia (don't judge) I honestly never parsed Khan as being indian nor particularly one emphasized ethnicity, I always just took him as some super human experiment played by a vaguely hispanic guy (the actor is hispanic but I never really parsed it as if he was from Mexico or the Dominican or anything so much as he was just a dude), and I was going to correct some dude on how Khan was an indian name (it's more central asian but heavily used by indians) until I remembered that his full name was Khan Noonien Singh, which is quite indian. So maybe Abrams is just like me, a dude who never really saw Khan as some great indian character as much as just an evil dude who wanted to get revenge on Kirk played by a hispanic actor.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
GORDON posted:As for the claim that the actor playing Khan is "white washing, and should be discussed," it's a fictional character, and didn't really exist. Wrong. Kahn, the character, exists. He is a cultural construct which is very real to many people as a constructed identity. Sorry post modern film theory is so hard maybe you should try reading a few books on the subject. quote:"White washing" implies deliberate intent. quote:If the people claiming it are allowed to have their opinion, then I am allowed to have mine. Claims of "racism," especially in a Star Trek movie, are 99% stupid. Stop oppressing me.  Won't somebody please think of the status quo
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:So maybe Abrams is just like me, a dude who never really saw Khan as some great indian character as much as just an evil dude who wanted to get revenge on Kirk played by a hispanic actor. A lot of people seem to think that whitewashing means the perpetrators are racist. This is an over-simplification. I very much doubt that Abrams is a racist. However, the fact that you can see a character who is explicitly not white - as in, it's literally in the script that he is not white - and not see that as something central to the character, something that can be changed to the "default", is to excersize what is called "white privilege". It is not a form of individual racism, but rather systematic, cultural racism. Somebody like Abrams is in a position of power to change these cultural norms, to shift overall perspectives for the better. If he was aware of this phenomenon, he may not have cast the part the way he did. Same goes for Shyamalan for the Last Airbender and Nolan in the Dark Knight.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:A lot of people seem to think that whitewashing means the perpetrators are racist. This is an over-simplification. I very much doubt that Abrams is a racist. Was it? This is where I'm a little unclear, because eve on the Trek wiki- where you know they obsess on the tiniest detail- they say his background is unclear.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Was it? This is where I'm a little unclear, because eve on the Trek wiki- where you know they obsess on the tiniest detail- they say his background is unclear. The script for "Space Seed" has dialogue to the effect that he is probably a Sikh from India.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:The script for "Space Seed" has dialogue to the effect that he is probably a Sikh from India. To be honest the fact that Khan was Indian always stuck with me because they didn't just toss out an Indian name and a Southeaster Asia location but specified Sikh of all things. I was genuinely confused when I saw that a lot of people apparently thought it was just some character with a nebulous racial background.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Well, more people know him from The Wrath of Khan, ironically enough, and there they don't talk about his background at all, plus he's light-skinned.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Well, more people know him from The Wrath of Khan, ironically enough, and there they don't talk about his background at all, plus he's light-skinned. I'm going to guess you are white. You may not understand this, but for many non-white people, it can be frustrating to never see anyone of your own race in decent roles. For people to write off changing a character who is of an ethnic minority to a white character as 'not a big deal' and raise a bunch of little excuses like you are can be maddening, because the opposite very rarely if ever happens.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
Honestly the only opposite in film I can think of is Bill Murray becoming Bernie Mac in Charlie's Angels 2. The only others are entire remakes of films to set them in a different cultural landscape, a la the Honeymooners or Are We Done Yet? As for the opposite, even GORDON's ridiculous rules that it must be a real person instead of a character for whitewashing to count, it is easy to find examples. 21 was about a team of MIT mathematicians who beat Vegas, in reality the team was 5 asians and a white woman, in the film they're almost all white (including the main characters). The woman Jennifer Connelly played in A Beautiful Mind is El Salvadoran in reality. The woman who hit a homeless man and left him impaled in her car windshield was black in real life, in the film Stuck, she was played by white actress Mena Suvari. In Extraordinary Measures, Harrison Ford plays the doctor who finds a cure for a real couple's children's genetic disease, while in reality the doctor is Asian. If you think of the common denominator for all this, it is money. Studios want big named actors to help draw in crowds, and there aren't many minority actors to fill those roles. Of the films I listed above, Stuck, 21, and Extraordinary Measures were not big budget releases (though 21 starred nobody and would have been an awesome vehicle for Asian actors) and Ron Howard has enough clout he could have gotten the Queen of El Salvador to star (this is a joke, everyone knows the King of El Salvador isn't married...) The only way there will be minorities to get big enough of stars to command roles is to give them parts, and that isn't going to happen when the directors and producers who can make it happen don't. You don't have to be donning a white hood to be part of and aid a system of racial inequality. And in a world that increasingly relies on overseas box office money to break even, that's increasingly stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:A part of me really wants them to have smooth heads. But if the cut footage from Star Trek is any indication, this will not be the case. Didn't all the Klingons shown in the cut footage have helmets on that obscured their foreheads?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:And in a world that increasingly relies on overseas box office money to break even, that's increasingly stupid. Films with black leads who aren't established stars usually struggle overseas.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
BrandonGK posted:Films with black leads who aren't established stars usually struggle overseas. Shame we don't have any data to support this, given that Hollywood never casts any black leads besides Will Smith and Denzel Washington.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:A part of me really wants them to have smooth heads. But if the cut footage from Star Trek is any indication, this will not be the case. I thought the footage cut from the last film only showed them with helmets on so you didn't know whether they were ridged or not.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I'm going to guess you are white. You may not understand this, but for many non-white people, it can be frustrating to never see anyone of your own race in decent roles. For people to write off changing a character who is of an ethnic minority to a white character as 'not a big deal' and raise a bunch of little excuses like you are can be maddening, because the opposite very rarely if ever happens. I'm not white and, once again, I'm saying that people are missing the issue entirely and focusing on the wrong thing like 99% of every SA racism or sexism discussion. The issue in this case is not one of purposely casting a white actor to profit more (which is whitewashing), it's that there are less ethnic actors in general, which is a problem with the underlying system in Hollywood. Due to that system, it's more likely that an established white person can get through to Abrams to showcase that outstanding audition, which is pretty much what happened. It is an annoying discussion because this isn't the movie to center around this type of side discussion for that reason, but people are using it as a jumping off point to do so anyway. Also, Bane is half English in the comic, so Hardy is pretty spot-on casting. Darko fucked around with this message at 15:25 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I'm going to guess you are white. You may not understand this, but for many non-white people, it can be frustrating to never see anyone of your own race in decent roles. For people to write off changing a character who is of an ethnic minority to a white character as 'not a big deal' and raise a bunch of little excuses like you are can be maddening, because the opposite very rarely if ever happens. I AM NOT SAYING IT'S OKAY. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm not white and, once again, I'm saying that people are missing the issue entirely and focusing on the wrong thing like 99% of every SA racism or sexism discussion. The issue in this case is not one of purposely casting a white actor to profit more (which is whitewashing), it's that there are less ethnic actors in general, which is a problem with the underlying system in Hollywood. Due to that system, it's more likely that an established white person can get through to Abrams to showcase that outstanding audition, which is pretty much what happened. It is an annoying discussion because this isn't the movie to center around this type of side discussion for that reason, but people are using it as a jumping off point to do so anyway. Isn't whitewashing both the casting of whites in ethnic rolls for profit and the casting of whites in ethnic roles because you "couldn't find" and ethnic actor? Both of those are linked together in an interweaving cycle of self fulfillment.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
So, if Khan is a super human with a eugenics background and Klingons have a history with attempted genetic modification loving up their species, what are the odds these plots are going to overlap?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Isn't whitewashing both the casting of whites in ethnic rolls for profit and the casting of whites in ethnic roles because you "couldn't find" and ethnic actor? Both of those are linked together in an interweaving cycle of self fulfillment. Whitewashing implies intent (thus the use of "washing," which is a purposeful action). It's, specifically, taking an ethnic role and either a) casting a white person in that role for marketability, or b) purposefully attempting to conform to "white standards of beauty" within that ethnic role for marketability. Being "color blind" and casting someone particularly for their acting ability, regardless of race, is not only not whitewashing, but is also an ideal (in situations of where ethnicity is irrelevant to the character). This issue is not one of whitewashing, but instead one of general ethnic disparity, where due to the underlying white privilege in film/acting; most great, seasoned actors will be white, so more meaty roles go to white actors. This is something that can be leveled against almost any film being made; not only for the great roles, but even in extras casting, for instance. It's easy to see why Star Trek could be a starting point for this kind of discussion, but the wrong fingers are being pointed at the wrong thing (which is par for the course for race/sex discussions on this forum), making the conversation kind of grating for me at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
The notion of being "color blind" as an ideal solution is so outrageously misguided that I can't believe it's actually still seriously suggested by anyone who's not a political pundit or myopic liberal. If the pool of actors already favors white participants then how in the world will being colorblind actually do anything to work towards equality in the industry and in media representation?
Danger fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Danger posted:The notion of being "color blind" as a good, purposefull solution is so outrageously misguided that I can't believe it's actually still seriously suggested by anyone who's not a political pundit or myopic liberal. If the pool of actors already favors white participants then how in the world will being colorblind actually do anything to work towards equality in the industry and in media representation? Ideal and solution (+ good/purposeful which added even more completely missing ideas) are two completely different words.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Darko posted:Ideal and solution (+ good/purposeful which added even more completely missing ideas) are two completely different words. Ok, fixed. No reason to change up the language you used.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
To bring up something totally different: I still have some hope that the dynamics of the Klingon race will be greatly changed due to the damage that Nero did to them off-screen in ST '09. A new political climate would be really interesting to see. One where perhaps the Klingons go aggressively to war with the Romulans, perhaps even joining with the Federation to do so. I know thinking about these things as actual events as if these are documentaries is extremely wrong-headed, but having grown up being a pretty big Trekkie I can't quite help going down those sorts of roads. So forgive me for putting the puzzle pieces together that way, but I'm honestly interested in seeing where those possibilities could go plot-wise since we could go so far afield from the original series plotlines and political messages. The Cold War just isn't relevant anymore, so long discussions of it (even particularly great ones like Balance of Terror from the first season of the original series) just aren't where the series should be going anymore. Star Trek has typically worked best when it has been steeped in allegory. While I'm not necessarily saying that Kirk should end up funding a Klingon terrorist who is after the Romulans only to have him rise up and become an enemy of the Federation decades later (bonus points if he's on space-dialysis), altering the setting to allow it to have something to say about modern politics would be fantastic. I completely adored Star Trek '09 and am eagerly anticipating this one. A Shatner and Takei cameo would make my day. Jerusalem posted:I'll also be happy so long as we get more stuff like this: Starship porn = best porn.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Danger posted:Ok, fixed. No reason to change up the language you used. edit: no idea how this double posted Darko fucked around with this message at 17:41 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 17:33
|
|