|
MisterBibs posted:Not going to spoil this entire post (since I feel it defeats the purpose), but it's about the topic at hand: ***not sure what part of this post to black out, if any*** EDIT: gently caress it, I'll just do it all. The problem is that minority characters are heavily underrepresented in film and television relative to white characters and actors. When you have a role where a south asian actor would be the default option- even if it's not inherent to the character- and you cast a white dude instead, you're not only perpetuating that imbalance, but actively eliminating a natural opportunity to help rectify it. What hope is there for the average asian actor to get ANY decent role, when even many asian-by-default roles are being cast with white actors? Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Apr 30, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Re: the leaked spoilers. Given the whole discussion of whitewashing specifically with regards to South Asians, not spoilering the posts is going to result in people very quickly figuring out that Cumberbatch = Khan.MisterBibs posted:Not going to spoil this entire post (since I feel it defeats the purpose), but it's about the topic at hand: Do you mean generally? Or specifically when the character's identity isn't "even a facet" of the character, whatever that means. Because the latter openly embraces whiteness as the default - characters of color have to have their color constitute X% of their role in the media in order to justify keeping their identity - and the former just says "gently caress it, we'll cast white if we want to cast white," which I don't think is defensible if we have expectations of actors of color one day having the same opportunities as white actors. Even if we accept that Khan's identity isn't a part of his character, who meets that burden if he doesn't? Despite being openly identified as North Indian and likely Sikh, despite his identity fitting into the diverse milieu of Star Trek and hammering home that the Eugenics Wars were a global thing, his color isn't sufficiently part of his character? Did McGivers have to turn to the camera and say "He is Sikh as gently caress. He is the Sikhest Sikh who ever Sikhed" to qualify Khan? The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Re: the leaked spoilers. Given the whole discussion of whitewashing specifically with regards to South Asians, not spoilering the posts is going to result in people very quickly figuring out that Cumberbatch = Khan. There's still an argument to be made about Ricardo Maltiban being cast in that role being inappropriate. But, I'm not going to make it. I don't disagree that the lack of minority characters in movies is troublesome. I do disagree that this is a discussion worth having here. In this instance, it seems like a no-brainer to cast someone of Hispanic or Indian heritage to play Khan. On the other hand, it's a no-brainer to cast someone who can own the role. We know Benicio Del Toro turned it down at first, so they obviously went that avenue. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think their biggest concern was finding an actor that would be able to fill some big shoes. It looks like they've done that here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Re: the spoilers I think it is just a shame that Edward James Olmos is too old to play him. I wonder how an alternative history would have viewed his Riker? Comedy casting option: Danny Trejo
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Anonymouse Mook posted:Re: the spoilers I think it is just a shame that Edward James Olmos is too old to play him. I wonder how an alternative history would have viewed his Riker? Comedy casting option: Danny Trejo I think Olmos would've been a pretty inspired choice, actually, especially since it's unclear exactly when the Botany Bay was discovered in this timeline. Seriously, Benicio Del Toro is not the only capable Hispanic actor, even leaving aside the freedom to go for an unknown because your box office is wrapped up in your leads and your franchise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Re: the leaked spoilers. Given the whole discussion of whitewashing specifically with regards to South Asians, not spoilering the posts is going to result in people very quickly figuring out that Cumberbatch = Khan. I haven't really paid that much attention to the marketing hype or anything to this movie but I assumed from the get go that this 'twist' was kind of known. I didn't even know it was meant to be a surprise. I don't have any problem with them changing the universe around, they've already established the whole thing is in another dimension. The changes made to the new universe could have ripple effects which have changed a whole boatload of stuff. The skin colour of some genetic experiment that takes the title of Khan isn't really that big a deal. Plus Cumberbatch is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think Olmos would've been a pretty inspired choice, actually, especially since it's unclear exactly when the Botany Bay was discovered in this timeline. Seriously, Benicio Del Toro is not the only capable Hispanic actor, even leaving aside the freedom to go for an unknown because your box office is wrapped up in your leads and your franchise. Of course! I forgot that Khan would only start aging when he was unfrozen. Section 31 could have pulled him out shortly after the Kelvin got splattered. One thing's for sure, this Khan would have changed the prefix codes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Goffer posted:I haven't really paid that much attention to the marketing hype or anything to this movie but I assumed from the get go that this 'twist' was kind of known. I didn't even know it was meant to be a surprise. I mean, the point of divergence is well after the Eugenics Wars, so that doesn't even hold up. But this isn't about "canon" or whatever, this is about taking one of the very few iconic roles in genre film that is explicitly a character of color and throwing a big tub of bleach on him. Sure, "characters of color" isn't a cosmically big deal, I'm sure we can all find stuff more pressing or whatever (and more pressing stuff to do than talk about Star Trek), but given that it has input (work for actors of color, which is how we get more roles of color, in addition to writers/producers/directors of color) and output (actually representing more than just white people on the screen) ramifications, I think it's worth at least piping up when the franchise decides to backpedal on progress that was made in the 1960s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I have no problems with an ÜberMensch being white. It makes the eugenics war seem more...disturbingly real. An Indian/Hispanic genetically engineered supersoldier seems less believable for whatever reason. Between WWII and countless movies, it's just in my head that way. See, that's what I liked about Montalban as Khan. Having a Latino as South Asian subverted your ingrained expectations regarding eugenics and supermen. And it was a nice little 'gently caress you' to the racists in the audience. But that said, I won't accuse Abrams or the rest of the crew of racism over this. I'm sure that after BDT couldn't play the role, their calculations were along the same lines that got Quinto the Spock role: find a capable actor that nerds love. And maybe, just maybe, they agree with you and find it more affective to have a blonde haired, blue eyed ÜberMensch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:
Even if he's not either. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:But that said, I won't accuse Abrams or the rest of the crew of racism over this. I'm sure that after BDT couldn't play the role, their calculations were along the same lines that got Quinto the Spock role: find a capable actor that nerds love. And maybe, just maybe, they agree with you and find it more affective to have a blonde haired, blue eyed ÜberMensch. No one's called Abrams or really anyone else a racist. Whitewashing isn't really a claim of racism against individuals, but more an underlying nature of the system that needs to be changed. Hell, it's not like they absolutely had to go with a Southeast Asian character, and shucks guys, all we got left at the top of our acting list is white dudes. Khan was just one of dozens of eugenic super men on board the Botany Bay. Why not chose one of them to be your villain? Oh hey, it's Wayne St-Pierre. Remember when he ruled the Americas from Toronto? Still passing up a chance for a character of color, but at least you aren't trying to pretend the most a man with the most English of names is the Indian eugenic ruler of Asia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:No one's called Abrams or really anyone else a racist. Whitewashing isn't really a claim of racism against individuals, but more an underlying nature of the system that needs to be changed. Do you think an English eugenic superman would not try to retake India?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I don't disagree that the lack of minority characters in movies is troublesome. I do disagree that this is a discussion worth having here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:This is the perfect place to discuss it because this is a perfect example of it happening. A great minority role is whitewashed simply to pack in an actor nerds cream their pants over (aka whitewash their pants) in a franchise that made its mark by specifically not whitewashing every role. It's also insulting to say that they needed an actor that would own the role, as if there are no minority actors besides Del Toro who could possibly play a multi-layered character like Khan. The choice to cast Cumberbach retroactively makes The Last Airbender progressive in its casting of Asian actors. You can't wave your hand and go "let's discuss this at some time and place that I don't have to read about it because being challenged makes me angry" I'd argue that it's a little more interesting here than in Airbender, because while there it was pointless and clear in it's offensiveness, in this case one could make the argument from a storytelling perspective, both ways mind you, for either a white Khan or a person of color Khan. It's troubling, and it sucks that it had to happen and poo poo on the movie, especially with JJ being kind of a douche with the "Heh, I DID say he was John Harrison though..." poo poo, but at least it's raising questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I'd argue that it's a little more interesting here than in Airbender, because while there it was pointless and clear in it's offensiveness, in this case one could make the argument from a storytelling perspective, both ways mind you, for either a white Khan or a person of color Khan. It's troubling, and it sucks that it had to happen and poo poo on the movie, especially with JJ being kind of a douche with the "Heh, I DID say he was John Harrison though..." poo poo, but at least it's raising questions. What are the arguments for a white Khan from a storytelling perspective? If we go by canon, he's nonwhite when he's frozen and unless Nero was carrying white matter as well as red matter, that shouldn't actually change. I mean the most credible argument is "since it was cross-casting to begin with, it's fair game," and I don't think that's particularly persuasive because of the structural gap between "white" and "all us other folk" in film and television media. The one thing that really, really pisses me off about this whole thing is that JJ Abrams was asked about whitewashing Khan with Cumberbatch and said he wasn't Khan. Sure, marketing and misdirection, but baldly lying to dodge a totally fair criticism is sleazy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What are the arguments for a white Khan from a storytelling perspective? If we go by canon, he's nonwhite when he's frozen and unless Nero was carrying white matter as well as red matter, that shouldn't actually change. I mean the most credible argument is "since it was cross-casting to begin with, it's fair game," and I don't think that's particularly persuasive because of the structural gap between "white" and "all us other folk" in film and television media. I meant 7thBatallion's point. I'm more in line with Khan being a person of color because it does subvert ingrained ideas about eugenics and supermen. I'm not really that into Trek, so please forgive me if I'm not fully versed in the character
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Being a person of (some) color this conversation is steering rapidly into offensive land itself. e: It's at least partly this privileged position that you can decide to dole out roles to minorities like scraps from a table. Like we're pets. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I meant 7thBatallion's point. I'm more in line with Khan being a person of color because it does subvert ingrained ideas about eugenics and supermen. I'm not really that into Trek, so please forgive me if I'm not fully versed in the character Khan was a North Indian, possibly Sikh, superhuman tyrant played by a Mexican actor, Ricardo Montalbán. It's mostly the fact that they took a textually nonwhite role that was substantively nonwhite as well (in the American context, for all the European goons, Latin Americans are generally considered not white*) and cast a white actor. api call girl posted:Being a person of (some) color this conversation is steering rapidly into offensive land itself. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, though. As a person of color myself, it's clear how much progress has been fought for and how easily it can be bulldozed by people who don't really pay attention to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Khan was a North Indian, possibly Sikh, superhuman tyrant played by a Mexican actor, Ricardo Montalbán. It's mostly the fact that they took a textually nonwhite role that was substantively nonwhite as well (in the American context, for all the European goons, Latin Americans are generally considered not white*) and cast a white actor. Okay, I understand more about the issue at hand now. I was aware that the role was whitewashed, but I had no real back story or anything to go on, so thanks for the information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even if he's not either. He sure looks it in every picture I've seen of him, but I'm not that familiar with him to begin with. Gyges posted:No one's called Abrams or really anyone else a racist. Whitewashing isn't really a claim of racism against individuals, but more an underlying nature of the system that needs to be changed. I didn't say anyone did. I just said what I wouldn't do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I like Star Trek 09 for all its flaws and plot holes cause despite them it felt TOS as hell to me in the fact it had Energy and was fun to watch. After thinking about those spoilers though, I get the feeling I'm in for Star Trek: the dark knight. Just looks like its going to be a dark movie tonewise. Sucks since another light hearted sci fi action movie would be great in my opinion. To me WoK was the darkest Original cast trek movie and even that one is played as a fun swashbuckling movie. Maybe JJ didn't see nemesis to see how real dark plays in trek. I kind of feel like this movie has Khan in it not cause it makes for a good story but cause its star trek 2 and the second star trek must have khan in it. That the public knows Khan and he is famous to us. I don't really know what these new guys were thinking trying to make a khan movie because no matter the outcome no matter if its better the WoK or not ut would always be held against it. I really don't think that Benedict has the same presence as Ricardo either. I don't feel anything when I see the trailer of nu-khan going "Shall we begin?" I like Sherlock but shouty Cumberbatch doesn't really have a lot of gravity for me. White or Latino or whatever I wish they cast an actor who could seem a menace. This is too many words about a movie that's not out yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:He sure looks it in every picture I've seen of him, but I'm not that familiar with him to begin with. Hazel-ish eyes maybe, but clearly dark hair. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Given that Khan in this movie seems to be more terrorist than shakespeare-quoting warlord, wouldn't depicting him as "probably sikh" be a pretty bad thing in itself? It seems like kind of a problem character whichever way you do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hazel-ish eyes maybe, but clearly dark hair. Ahh, I was going by the first pics that show up on Google.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Well I guess that spoiler does kill a lot of excitement for me as a Trek fan. I might have given them the benefit of doubt because the selling point of the movie was Benedict Cumberbatch playing a new villian... who turns out to be Khan, not Benedict Cumberbatch playing KHAN all along. I'm just particularly annoyed that the film's PR went out of the way to say he wasn't Khan to silence discussion on the racial implications of the casting choice. It was a calculated move to stop potential bad publicity and it loving WORKED. And because it's conveniently a spoiler, people are less likely to openly talk about it. I would have been cool with Cumberbatch simply being a new bad guy, like Nero was in the last one. They couldn't have just done that?  In some ways, the the 2009 reboot in itself was whitewashing. By going back to Kirk and Spock, it prevented the creation of new lead characters that could have been played by someone other than white dudes. (In a franchise that always preached about being progressive...) I hate to do this, but I'm slowing inching back towards the "I can't wait for the JJ's incarnation of Trek to be over" camp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Star Trek: Redacted
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Do you think an English eugenic superman would not try to retake India? What good is the Eastern part of the Ol' Empire if you can't eat your beans and toast while overlooking the Thames?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:Maybe JJ didn't see nemesis to see how real dark plays in trek. Nah, this film is straight-up about Star Trek (the franchise's) (descent) Into Darkness. Look at that evil ship from the trailer, it is, literally, dark and edgy. You have a shot in the trailer of the bright, space-age looking original Enterprise vs something that represents the morose tone of Nemesis. Which also happened in 09 too. This one goes further still by the looks of the spoilers. The bad guys being Section 31, who basically say "We've been around since Kirk, doing all that nasty stuff you thought humanity was better than" in the name of gritty realism. Forum Actuary fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
I highly doubt that hiding the fact that the villain is Khan was meant to avoid comments on racism and/or whitewashing. I would put money down that nobody at the studio even thought that would be a concern. The hiding of the identity of the villain of the film was meant to cause a "shock" moment in the theaters when Cumberbatch reveals his name is Khan and the jaws of everyone who watched Wrath drop to the floor
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Should've picked Danny Pudi. Then it would truly be the darkest timeline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Well, as far I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on them, not people crying foul. Considering their first choice, they knew, at some point during casting, that maybe the villian shouldn't have been played by a whitebread actor. Long before they started casting, there were calls from some corners of fandom to cast a latino or Indian if they were going to bring back Khan. If I saw this in theater without spoilers, my jaw would have "dropped" because my thought would be "But he's a white dude! Come on!" This film went from "definitely see in theaters" to "maybe wait for it to be on netflix." This is really difficult because I've been waiting four years for this. I have never seen Sherlock, and my only exposure to Cumberbatch was him breathing in the last two seconds of the Hobbit movie, so the choice of him doesn't excite me one bit. I have no reason to further rationalize their poor choice. edit: Isn't that what I just said and you quoted? Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Well I guess that spoiler does kill a lot of excitement for me as a Trek fan. Spoilered but it's the same thing everyone else is talking about : I don't think the 2009 reboot itself necessarily lended itself to whitewashing, as film making is a creative process and doesn't need to be beholden to some universal structure. Star Trek isn't the accurate retelling of historical events. Kirk, Spock, or any of the characters could easily have been cast as non-white actors. In fact, it would have really added to the first's themes by destroying those expectations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Well, as far I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on them, not people crying foul. Considering their first choice, they knew, at some point during casting, that maybe the villian shouldn't have been played by a whitebread actor. Long before they started casting, there were calls from some corners of fandom to cast a latino or Indian if they were going to bring back Khan. If I saw this in theater without spoilers, my jaw would have "dropped" because my thought would be "But he's a white dude! Come on!" If you're going to boycott it due to race issues maybe actually do so then? It's not as though companies magically make less just because you don't see it on opening night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Now I'm dissappointed. Olmos would have been amazing and now that that idea is in my head, this move will never live up to it. I want to see Khan beat up Spock with a flashlight and go to warp while doing an atmo drop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Do you think an English eugenic superman would not try to retake India? Judging by Picard's accent, they took France too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Judging by Picard's accent, they took France too! That is due to them Deciding to bring back Henry the fifth. England took over France and wiped them out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
A new trailer has a quick shot of a Klingon without the helmet: http://i.imgur.com/OUkXk52.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Why are they wearing masks again? Was it just to be dramatic about revealing what JJTrek Klingons look like?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
I think originally he didn't know if he wanted to give them ridges or not, at least that is what I remember hearing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Why are they wearing masks again? Was it just to be dramatic about revealing what JJTrek Klingons look like? Some think it has to do with the augment stuff from enterprise and they're ashamed of their smooth foreheads. Odds are its probably just cheaper and easier than giving everyone the makeup.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:12
|
|