|
Khan was a genetic mish-mash anyway, my issue is that they changed his apparent ethnicity
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
I would argue that it's not "obliviously dismissing" whitewashing, but acknowledging a fundamental point. I'll spoiler it, just in the event that it leads to unwanted revelations: Khan was never about his race or nationality. He was named after a friend of Roddenberry's that he was trying to catch up with. His nationality made so little impact that he was played by person of a completely different nationality. And above all that, we're talking about a guy whose whole shtick is that he's genetically engineered. The issue at hand has the weight and impact of "Starbuck can't be a female, because... um...". EDIT: Just realized something cool: Khan tells Spock he can't break a rule, much less break a bone. During their fight, Spock loving breaks Khan's arm. Oh, and something else I kind of liked: Khan ends the film in cyro, smiling. Why? Because he's found that his family isn't dead, and being in cyro with them is better than being alone and awake. 
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 08:40 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I don't see how or why, the end result is the same; the same ethnic minority being shafted. Gonna pull up an exchange from a while back to address this general hair-splitting sentiment about getting the race/ethnicity exactly 100% right or else an equal offense has been committed: The Warszawa posted:I feel like what you're saying is the same as trying to say that Uhura was "brownwashed" because an African-American actress's role was cast with a black Dominican-Puerto Rican actress, in that it fundamentally fails to recognize that as far as Hollywood is concerned, there's "white" and "other." The fact is, there are precious few major roles of color in modern Hollywood - more than there used to be, but still not a whole lot - and while having a minority of one group play a minority of another group isn't the vanguard of thoughtful consideration of race and ethnicity in filmmaking, it's a drat sight better than turning one of the most iconic roles in the franchise white. "Space Seed" was 46 years ago and Wrath of Khan was 31 - regression from that isn't particularly acceptable. In other words, I'm not entirely convinced anyone making your argument is really giving a poo poo about the moral heart of the issue at hand, you seem to be rules-lawyering just to win and make the other person shut up. (Someone will no doubt retort that I don't care about the issue either, and I just want to denigrate the film in a way that gives me a moral high horse to shield me from criticism. I don't need that, because its flaws are quite apparent aside and without this particular issue taken into consideration. I simply don't wish to discuss them myself, others are doing that just fine.) McSpanky fucked around with this message at 08:42 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Gonna pull up an exchange from a while back to address this general hair-splitting sentiment about getting the race/ethnicity exactly 100% right or else an equal offense has been committed: I don't think you care at all and just want to call people who like the movie racist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
That's a very effective way of not addressing what I said at all. I'm not making an 'argument', I'm certainly not defending Cumberbatch's casting. I'm asking you something. I respect that you, and others, think that a minority recieiving the role over a caucasian actor is preferable, but I don't accept that in a matter of this sort there are varying degrees of 'offensiveness'. Functionally, there's no difference for the people who 'should' have been cast for the role, so it seems pretty self-defeating to argue in favour of correct representation and then inarguably settle for 'less'. Don't you agree? If not, why? Simply because it's 'less offensive', if we accept that there are varying standards? I don't agree with that outlook, I think if you're going to argue for minorities to be considered first and foremost for roles that the character shares ethnicity with them, then you should do it in every event, surely?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I don't think you care at all and just want to call people who like the movie racist. As expected. And I don't think anyone who still likes the film after being confronted with this problem are racist, I just think they're willfully ignorant because it's easier than engaging uncomfortable social issues raised by the production of something they enjoy. Hell, I'm sure I've done it before, everyone has (just look at what happens every time Roman Polanski gets brought up) -- but at least I haven't done it here and now, with this issue slapping me in the face after the film producers went out of their way to hide it and avoid exactly this discussion from happening. Dan Didio posted:That's a very effective way of not addressing what I said at all. I'm not making an 'argument'. I respect that you, and others, think that a minority recieiving the role over a caucasian actor is preferable, but I don't accept that in a matter of this sort there are varying degrees of 'offensiveness'. Functionally, there's no difference for the people who 'should' have been cast for the role, so it seems pretty self-defeating to argue in favour of correct representation and then inarguably settle for 'less'. Well, what is being settled for? Some examples given occurred in the past and we have no choice but to "settle" because all the willpower in the universe can't change what already happened original Khan, and some I understand are more acceptable from my best understanding of the situation as given by the most directly affected groups (John Cho as Sulu). I admit a far from comprehensive understanding of Korean-Japanese relations on the issue of Hollywood casting though, if anyone can speak more accurately to it I'd love to hear more. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 08:52 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:As expected. And I don't think anyone who still likes the film after being confronted with this problem are racist, I just think they're willfully ignorant because it's easier than engaging uncomfortable social issues raised by the production of something they enjoy. Hell, I'm sure I've done it before, everyone has (just look at what happens every time Roman Polanski gets brought up) -- but at least I haven't done it here and now, with this issue slapping me in the face after the film producers went out of their way to hide it and avoid exactly this discussion from happening. Do you think that casting minorities is more important than casting good actors? Because Benedict Cumberbatch loving destroyed the role. He's incredible in the movie. scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 09:01 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Well, what is being settled for? An actor that doesn't fit the character's race or ethnicity or any other similar criteria.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Well, what is being settled for? Some examples given occurred in the past and we have no choice but to "settle" because all the willpower in the universe can't change what already happened original Khan, and some I understand are more acceptable from my best understanding of the situation as given by the most directly affected groups (John Cho as Sulu). I admit a far from comprehensive understanding of Korean-Japanese relations on the issue of Hollywood casting though, if anyone can speak more accurately to it I'd love to hear more. I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of any race's relations with Hollywood except white people's. India doesn't really need representation here; I'm sure you've heard of Bollywood?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:An actor that doesn't fit the character's race or ethnicity or any other similar criteria. Isn't casting the most engaging, compelling actor for an antagonist isn't the primary criteria? There is no obligation to cast a character a certain way because of what take the earlier incarnation chose. For me, Cumberbatch out-Khaned Ricardo Montalban.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Do you think Spider-Man could be black? How about J. Jonah Jameson? This isn't a valid comparison, unless we were talking about Spider-Man suddenly being black in The Amazing Spider-Man 2
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Isn't casting the most engaging, compelling actor for an antagonist isn't the primary criteria? Cumberbatch out-Khaned Ricardo Montalban. I think that's a pretty different argument. Casting the best actor for the role is compelling reasoning, but the point that most detractors of that way of thinking would, I think quite fairly, make is that the best actor might not be getting the opportunity for resons that have nothing to do with acting ability. For the record, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought Alice Eve was kind of wasted. She felt like kind of a tag-along character who didn't really fit with the crew's dynamic. Maybe that was what they were going for, but I just didn't get the feeling that she was worth the screen-time, despite how well she did or didn't do with the role. Really excited for Abrams Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:This isn't a valid comparison, unless we were talking about Spider-Man suddenly being black in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 I know, I'm just having fun with hypotheticals. I guess it's a potentially huge derail so I'll rid the post of it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I admit a far from comprehensive understanding of Korean-Japanese relations on the issue of Hollywood casting though, if anyone can speak more accurately to it I'd love to hear more. Interestingly enough, the same thing happened in the recent G.I. Joe films. A Korean actor cast in the role of a Japanese character. Remember that Wachowski produced film a few years back, Ninja Assassin? Another Korean actor cast as a Japanese character. But this is an odd digression. I'll stop now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I think that's a pretty different argument. Casting the best actor for the role is compelling reasoning, but the point that most detractors of that way of thinking would, I think quite fairly, make is that the best actor might not be getting the opportunity for resons that have nothing to do with acting ability. From what I understand, there was another guy cast in the role that was of the authentic race. He backed out, so the studio went searching for someone else. Cumberbatch got the role from talking to someone on the phone, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
I don't know about that, so I can't really comment on it. I don't know, I wasn't ever arguing that Cumberbatch shouldn't have got the role.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
The best thing to take from this movie is that it pretty much shouted HEY, IN THE NEXT MOVIE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A HUGE KLINGON WAR AND IT'S GONNA BE loving AMAZING.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
It's Cinematic Affirmative Action, where tax deductions will be given to movies with minority roles, the best roles will be given to mediocre actors just because of their race, and all the great white actors will be left out in the dust because nobody will be writing white characters anymore. God save us.....
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:04
|
|
Alright, I wrote up a little minireview for the film. Since black boxes are still going down, I'm going to spoiler the whole thing. It's really meant for the TV IV Trek thread crowd, but I'll share it with you guys too, since that thread isn't open for movie chat until after the weekend.Me, five minutes ago posted:So, I just got back from seeing Star Trek Into Darkness five minutes ago, let's get my take on it down. Simply put, it was top-notch. The acting, writing, characterization, and design were superb and I couldn't possibly have asked for more. The story and pacing, while imperfect, combined with the above to keep me engaged and involved to the point of slack-jawed star-struck awe.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:05
|
|
), and as an addict for cyberpunk and it's ilk I was enthralled by the look we got at life on Earth in the 22nd century: gleaming, dense cities built for foot traffic and human presence, lots of courtyards and walking paths and ground-level green spaces.
|
I expect to enjoy this movie overall, but the casting does leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is possible for a film to be great and also have a li'l cloud of hosed-up hanging over it. I have to laugh at the paranoia about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL SOON GO TOO FAR!!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Do you think that casting minorities is more important than casting good actors? Because Benedict Cumberbatch loving destroyed the role. He's incredible in the movie. Whitewashing isn't about acting ability anymore than affirmative action is about testing/job ability, knock this poo poo off. scary ghost dog posted:It's Cinematic Affirmative Action, where tax deductions will be given to movies with minority roles, the best roles will be given to mediocre actors just because of their race, and all the great white actors will be left out in the dust because nobody will be writing white characters anymore. God save us..... too late
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be more awkward to have a Brown Skinned Actor being the one who crashes a ship into a major city?McSpanky posted:Whitewashing isn't about acting ability anymore than affirmative action is about testing/job ability, knock this poo poo off. "This poo poo" is the core of the issue, though. If the directors find that {Actor X} plays {Character X} amazingly, what obligations are they to cast the role differently? No, previous incarnations of the character aren't to be cited. You're right, whitewashing isn't about acting ability. BC's acting ability is amazing. Therefore, the decision was not whitewashing, but about acting ability. Related: Poor Mickey. The Doctor would be very upset. 
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 09:22 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:"This poo poo" is the core of the issue, though. If the directors find that {Actor X} plays {Character X} amazingly, what obligations are they to cast the role differently? No, previous incarnations of the character aren't to be cited. He's not a previous incarnation, though, he's the same incarnation recast and branched-in-time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:He's not a previous incarnation, though, he's the same incarnation recast. But under that logic, you must cast the character from a race other than the one verbally expressed, because that's how it's gone before. The character we're discussing has never had a congruence between the spoken ethnicity and the actor playing him. More to the point, it's almost as if making the actor and the spoken ethnicity congruent is against earlier depictions. Besides, while you can  for hours about divergence points and the like, ultimately it's a New Khan in a New Trek Universe. Think "Oh, this is this universe's Khan", less "Hey Khan didn't look like that!"
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 09:37 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:"This poo poo" is the core of the issue, though. If the directors find that {Actor X} plays {Character X} amazingly, what obligations are they to cast the role differently? No, previous incarnations of the character aren't to be cited. Haha, the hell they aren't to be cited. When one chooses to use preexisting roles/characters of color but then changes their races/ethnicities, that act reduces the number of opportunities people of color have to practice their craft in an already notoriously prejudiced entertainment industry, and that is when whitewashing occurs. You can't not cite the very heart of the issue. Why isn't the actor's ability a justification to that change? Because that comes after the change has been made. If the the right thing had been done in the first place, the white actor would never have been in consideration for the role in the first place. His performance, no matter how incredible it may be, is fruit of the poisonous tree for the purposes of determining social responsibility for the act of whitewashing. The injustice was committed before a single second of his performance was put to film.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Are all the consequences of whitewashing hypothetical or are there any specific examples? I don't think extensive debate counts as a consequence. Edit: Once again, Indian actors have absolutely no trouble practicing their craft, as India has a more prolific and successful movie industry than America.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
You heard it here first: if you're an Indian-American actor, just leave the country if you want to find work!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
Well, if you want to argue that point, you have to admit that actors the world over pretty much have to move to L.A. to be successful in Hollywood, regardless of skin color. Work never stops being hard to get for anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
I cannot believe your posts are real.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
I cannot believe Pluto isn't a planet!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I cannot believe your posts are real. Pretty sure he's been trolling about the whole page or so.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
I think what we've learned is that this is not the place to argue about racism in Hollywood, as it is a deeply ingrained element of filmmaking that cannot be easily summarized in a single role or casting decision.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Quit ruining this thread, sgd. I beg of you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:You heard it here first: if you're an Indian-American actor, just leave the country if you want to find work! I dunno, this dude could've pulled it off on looks alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrithik_Roshan
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Haha, the hell they aren't to be cited. When one chooses to use preexisting roles/characters of color but then changes their races/ethnicities, that act reduces the number of opportunities people of color have to practice their craft in an already notoriously prejudiced entertainment industry, and that is when whitewashing occurs. You can't not cite the very heart of the issue. So you are saying that it is more important to hire a lesser-talented actor of the 'correct' race (despite the character having a history of being very confused, ethnically) than to hire someone who is better at the task at hand. In this case, portraying a compelling, engaging antagonist. Not buying it for a second. Cumberbatch played an outstanding incarnation of this character (superior, I feel, in fact), and I strongly argue that replacing him for something as trivial as "He's not the race they said he was... even if he was played by a different ethnicity than that last time!" is foolish. McSpanky posted:If the the right thing had been done in the first place, the white actor would never have been in consideration for the role in the first place. His performance, no matter how incredible it may be, is fruit of the poisonous tree for the purposes of determining social responsibility for the act of whitewashing. The injustice was committed before a single second of his performance was put to film. Only his performance matters, though. I'd be more likely to agree with your argument if Cumberbatch wasn't amazing at the role. He is, though. The only obligation movie-makers have is to put the highest quality product on the screen for the audience. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 10:02 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I dunno, this dude could've pulled it off on looks alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrithik_Roshan It would appear that he has already played two characters named Khan!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
A white genetically engineered superman is far scarier than an ethnic one. It screams of Nazi Germany and makes Khan seem more entwined with past history. And more terrifying. I always saw Khan as more of a self chosen title or rank, a reference to Genghis Khan's legacy, his brutality, cunning, the land he conquered, and the death that followed him. Not so much the ethnic lineage.
Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 10:10 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
I enjoyed the film, but the pacing was ridiculous at times. You could fit a [SCENE DELETED] slide into like 10+ places in there. Also, TWO "THE BOMB HAS BEEN ARMED AND IS COUNTING DOWN OH NO WILL OUR HEROES BEAT THE CLOCK???" scenes? Was that a joke?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Only his performance matters, though. I'd be more likely to agree with your argument if Cumberbatch wasn't amazing at the role. He is, though. Do you understand how causality works? How chains of events unfold from the past to the present? You seem to have some trouble understanding at what point in time the error was committed in this process, and on which side of it Cumberbatch's performance enters the equation (hint: long after the offense was committed). I thought I made it very clear that his performance didn't matter, but you seem as dead-set on focusing on it as you are on ignoring the concept of social responsibility. If your viewpoint is that films (or even just this film) are truly only here to deliver the most engaging spectacle and the filmmakers own no social responsibility for any decisions they make towards that goal, then we're at loggerheads and I won't carry this derail any further with you. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 10:28 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Does anyone actually know what the argument's about anymore.MisterBibs posted:Oh, and something else I kind of liked: Khan ends the film in cyro, smiling. Why? Because he's found that his family isn't dead, and being in cyro with them is better than being alone and awake. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. It was a really sweet touch and despite everything that had happened, there was some level of satisfaction seeing that expression.
poptart_fairy fucked around with this message at 10:18 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:16
|
|
