|
McSpanky posted:The only reason this topic is a potential spoiler is because the producers cowardly dodged the whole issue by cloaking the character's true identity and hiding it behind the spoiler curtain. The Last Airbender taught Hollywood a valuable lesson about whitewashing: pull the ol' switcheroo next time, by the time anyone takes notice they'll be too gorged on tits n' 'splosions to give a gently caress. Worked like a charm. Are you seriously saying that Abrams' efforts with the film is a conspiracy to keep minorities down, dude.
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Captain Hilarious posted:From Space Seed: Note: A sikh. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Is the Khan/Cumberbatch character a new thing or is he from one of the series? I remember the famous "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN" thing from Shatner but that was a Klingon not some suped up superhuman Well that character is from the original 60s series episode Space Seed. Ricardo Montalban played a genetically enhanced human who was superior to regular folk. Basically he was a suped up superhuman. He was defeated by Kirk and crew and exiled to a planet, which was later ravaged by disaster, killing his wife, and then we got the Wrath of Khan in Star Trek II. Watch both if you haven't seen it. Good stuff. Khan is also what lead to the banning of using genetic engineering of that type in the Star Trek universe. It's also addressed in Deep Space 9 related to Julian Bashir's character.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Are you seriously saying that Abrams' efforts with the film is a conspiracy to keep minorities down, dude. Of course not, that would imply that you have to try to keep minorities down in Hollywood. They only need a McSpanky fucked around with this message at 16:54 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Oh and I was initially concerned about Pegg having a larger role in the movie - I actually rather detest Simon Pegg - but he was tolerable. Pegg has this thing going on where I find him really likable on film and obnoxious as an actual person. He's kind of belligerently opinionated. an example in a recent interview: quote:Someone on Twitter accused me of lying about a plot detail of Into Darkness the other day, as though I owed them the truth in some way; as if there is some law somewhere that states film makers have to fess up to the secrets of their movies if speculation randomly hits upon a truth. I say screw that, as far as I’m concerned, the people who are hell bent on ruining the film for everyone else are the enemy and I owe them nothing, least of all the truth. He could have played it off as "ha ha that was cheeky of me wasn't it", but instead he's really really serious and contemptuous about it, attributing to malice what should probably be attributed to eagerness. I agree that filmmakers shouldn't have to confirm speculation, but the vitriol is weird. Plus, the "It's not Khan" party line he towed was, as mentioned, used to dodge and shut down legit criticisms of the casting. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 16:57 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Just read a few pages. I hope the social justice warriors derail disappears soon.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:legit criticisms of the casting. Pictured: Khan Noonien Singh 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Just read a few pages. If they'd just not had the character in the first place then about 90% of the film could have been virtually the same with very minor alterations.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:90% of the film could have been virtually the same with very minor alterations. This is an even better derail, reductionism and fragmentalism.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Is it wrong I have this image of Lady Gaga in my head sitting on the captain's chair of the evil ship and saying "Shall we begin." to Kirk's crew leading into Discostick and a dance off?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Of course not, that would imply that you have to try to keep minorities down in Hollywood. They only need a What? The "shady stuff" is part of the narrative. The narrative was written with Benicio del Toro in mind. You're saying that the film was only written with a 2nd act character revelation that wasn't revealed in marketing because they knew an actor would drop out and be replaced with another one after it was written. edit: The film (annoyingly) plays off familiarity of the previous material. The first time you see it, you aren't supposed to know he's Khan because you aren't supposed to have those preconceptions about the character until that exact point in the film. Then it tries to turn those preconceptions on its head (which was good), then he soon reverts back to generic bad guy (which is not good). Darko fucked around with this message at 17:05 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Note: A sikh. api call girl posted:Pictured: Khan Noonien Singh Your argument is literally that since they cast the character in a messed-up way back in the 1960s, they should never ever try to do better.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If they'd just not had the character in the first place then about 90% of the film could have been virtually the same with very minor alterations. I guess it is a mistake now that the more socially-sensitive fans are reacting to the casting. I had no idea who Khan was at that point but, perhaps, if he'd been "dusky" I may well have linked the moment to the Khan moment from the prior Star Trek films. They could have created an absolutely fresh character - Bob the Superhuman. They could even have left in Nimoy's reaction to hearing about "Bob" the superhuman - he'd already said he wasn't gonna reveal anything to change Spock's destiny so whatever advice Nimoy gave to Spock would still have held. WastedJoker fucked around with this message at 17:07 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Your argument is literally that since they cast the character in a messed-up way back in the 1960s, they should never ever try to do better. Your argument is that they didn't cast someone brown enough. Think about this.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:perhaps, if he'd been "dusky" Like, you guys realize the Wrath of Khan version of the Khan character, that's a SUN TAN, right?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Your argument is literally that since they cast the character in a messed-up way back in the 1960s, they should never ever try to do better. What is the proper way to cast a genetic superman who was birthed in a test tube? I'm of two minds on the casting decision, and neither of them have to do with white-washing. I appreciate Montalban in the original role as it was kind of a great gently caress you to the racists of the time--the pinnacle of eugenics is non-white. On the other hand, I appreciate Cumberpatch in the role because as another poster noted a page or two back, he recalls the myths of eugenics and aryan supremacy and all the horrors that entails. api call girl posted:Like, you guys realize the Wrath of Khan version of the Khan character, that's a SUN TAN, right? Really, the question we should be asking is: are Cumberpatch's pecs oily and defined enough for the role.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Like, you guys realize the Wrath of Khan version of the Khan character, that's a SUN TAN, right? Now that I think about it, the guys who played the Klingons aren't real Klingons either. I am officially outraged now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What is the proper way to cast a genetic superman who was birthed in a test tube? If the story has established him as south asian, then probably a south asian actor. The intense defensiveness is weird. Earlier we had someone suggest without apparent irony that south asian actors are just supposed to self-segregate and find roles in Bollywood instead of Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Guys, you've been to see a film about superhumans, aliens, ships flying faster than light, a man standing in a volcano that they make INERT with a giant icicle and the only thing you guys took from it was that someone was too white? C'mon.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:If the story has established him as south asian, then probably a south asian actor. The intense defensiveness is weird. Earlier we had someone suggest without apparent irony that south asian actors are just supposed to self-segregate and find roles in Bollywood instead of Hollywood. Except people have said with zero irony that they would be fine with a(nother) hispanic man playing a south asian man.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Montalban in the original role as it was kind of a great gently caress you to the racists of the time--the pinnacle of eugenics is non-white. Pictured: non-white pinnacle of eugenics 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The intense defensiveness is weird. It's no weirder than the obsessive level of outrage that spawned it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except people have said with zero irony that they would be fine with a(nother) hispanic man playing a south asian man. Well, I don't find that super agreeable either, so I'd rather not have that pinned on me. If you felt I was pinning scary ghost dog's stance on you, I apologize. WastedJoker posted:Guys, you've been to see a film about superhumans, aliens, ships flying faster than light, a man standing in a volcano that they make INERT with a giant icicle and the only thing you guys took from it was that someone was too white? This is disingenuous. I already posted that I expect to enjoy a lot about the film, which I'll probably be seeing tonight. in fact, I've defended other elements of this film and this film and the previous one in this very thread! That doesn't somehow place all negative aspects OFF LIMITS.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It's no weirder than the obsessive level of outrage that spawned it. I don't think a lot of the originally outraged people even knew that first casting was Del Toro, really, and Cumberbach was a last minute "impressive audition" when the former dropped out. That's probably where the "marketing exists to hide the casting" idea came from - as it ignores that the pre-existing script always had a second act reveal before the new guy was cast in it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
The casting and race issue I think is a valid discussion and open to good criticism. I think there is a thread somewhere in CineD that discussed this in a recent time frame. Maybe if desired separate the conversation? EDIT: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3518139 Gatts fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:If the story has established him as south asian, then probably a south asian actor. The intense defensiveness is weird. Earlier we had someone suggest without apparent irony that south asian actors are just supposed to self-segregate and find roles in Bollywood instead of Hollywood. Does the story, this story, establish him as such? What does that even mean in the context of a genetically engineered superman? Is that where his test tube was located, or is that where his genetic material was harvested? api call girl posted:Pictured: non-white pinnacle of eugenics What is your point? Montalban looks Hispanic in that picture.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Darko posted:I don't think a lot of the originally outraged people even knew that first casting was Del Toro, really, and Cumberbach was a last minute "impressive audition" when the former dropped out. It would have certainly been interesting to see Del Toro in the role, although Cumberbatch was a pretty drat good replacement.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Comedy option, cast Shah-Rukh Khan. Have a dance sequence in a flashback explaining his origins and rise to power set to modern tunes and include a love story. It'd do mucho business in India.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What is your point? Montalban looks Hispanic in that picture. Probably that his ethnicity/version of Mexican people are basically "white," anywhere but in the U.S., where "white" means, "does the majority accept you as part of the normal mainstream or not" which is why the palest possible region (The Irish) weren't even viewed as "white" for a long time. The core issue with racial and not ethnic framing is that the general idea of "race" is utterly idiotic in the first place, and the definitions of what constitutes what is entirely arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Darko posted:Probably that his ethnicity/version of Mexican people are basically "white," anywhere but in the U.S., where "white" means, "does the majority accept you as part of the normal mainstream or not" which is why the palest possible region (The Irish) weren't even viewed as "white" for a long time. Ahh, I see. In that sense, Montalban is an even better gently caress you to the racists of the time because only they would see what their problem with him was.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
So I just saw the movie, all in all I'd say it's the best Star Trek movie I've ever seen. But I'm totally not surprised to see everyone talking about that one Weird Thing, because it confused the hell out of me. I spent the whole movie after the reveal just assuming that it was a fake out because it's such an obvious twist and, you know, Cumberbatch is a white English dude. I thought it'd turn out that Harrison was one of Khan's crew and all along he was trying to free the real Khan. I even stayed to the end of the credits assuming that there'd be a scene showing that to set up the sequel. But nope. Really weird choice. Other than that though, as a Trek fan and a movie fan it was awesome. Also I really need to watch Wrath of Khan again.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Unrelated: I was surprised by how strongly I reacted to the scene where the aliens casually drop their Sacred Scroll to draw the Enterprise. The Prime Directive has always felt like a narrative hurdle at best, but that scene really explained why it exists. Everything they believed in, over the course of their development, something they stopped chasing our heroes to pray to, dropped like trash.. Very powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Regarding "whitewashing", Star Trek always had insta-plastic surgery, so my take on it was "Okay, they used that to stop people going 'Hey, don't you think the new guy in accounts looks a lot like... Hitler?'" and got on with watching the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Unrelated: I think it would've been neat if there was a flash-forward of 1000 yrs where it showed the direction the culture had taken as a result of that one event...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
So I consider myself to be a big Trek fan, loved the 2009 flick, and in spite of being mostly a fan of TOS I never tried to directly compare these new films to the old ones. Wanted to embrace the new, and I felt the first one rewarded me for that. This movie I thought was just too dumb and really, surprisingly badly written. I found it to be particularly joyless, too - didn't come anywhere near the sense of fun, adventure and blooming camaraderie that first one had. I went in expecting a certain amount of WTF storytelling - this is the screenwriting team that collectively gave us Prometheus and Transformers 2, a after all- but no way did I expect it to actually come close to the storytelling train wreck that Prometheus was, which I felt it really did. It's more than just basic plot holes for story convenience, which is what nerds tend to rag on most when they're trying to rip something apart. It had all the story and character motivation problems Prometheus did, except these are beloved and familiar characters, I guess, so it's a little harder to notice that people act and make decisions based on plot convenience, not what would naturally drive them to act. It's a drat Lindelof thing specifically, I think, where his characters don't behave organically, they just sort of robotically do whatever it's going to take to move the story in the direction he needs it to go (see: every th character action in Prometheus). The entire crew spends the film largely bitching and sniping at eachother with little to no actual growth between them. Kirk and Spock are best buds who fight a lot but ultimately care about eachother a great deal, which was established in the first film and given no further depth here. Uhura is relegated to Spock's Bitchy Girlfriend and doesn't develop beyond that. Wacky Scotty is Wacky Scotty. The first film really felt like it was focusing so much more on building new versions of these iconic characters, and I could forgiven the rather intensely dumb story filled with horrible spat-out exposition (let's all stand around and describe our characters to eachother and then explain the plot almost directly into the camera!) if the character work had been there and it just wasn't. Quinto is MVP as usual but even Spock felt hollow. it had become clear earlier than this in the film just how stupid the story was, but it all really clicked for me when they literally called up Old Spock so he could tell them the story of Star Trek II. Can't wait for the next one when they give him a ring and he's like "oh, right, have you run into the space whales yet? As a result of all this I didn't I even find myself enjoying the spectacle and could not believe how badly they wasted Khan. Really hoping they dump the garbage writing trifecta they had on this one and bring in someone who can give us a solid story next time.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Can't get past how they can cast younger versions of every cast member portrayed ethnically accurate to date, but suddenly get a white Khan Noonien Singh. Imagine different races for every main character and then guess if the 2009 movie would have flopped or not. The answer is the movie would have flopped. I can't wait for J.J. Abram's Star Wars. He'll just poo poo up the story, regardless of racism or not Hit Man fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Hit Man posted:I can't wait for J.J. Abram's Star Wars. He'll just poo poo up the story, regardless of racism or not I cannot understand this thought process at all. Is there some group of people on this planet that feels like the Star Wars franchise can get worse than the Prequels? Because those people are the wrongest people on Earth.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Hit Man posted:how they can cast younger versions of every cast member portrayed ethnically accurate to date e: too flippant and off-point VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Saw the movie last night and enjoyed it. I'd really like to see some more even space battles in these new Trek movies rather than just the Enterprise versus a giant gently caress off supership all the time though. I'm hoping the next movie with the hinted Klingon War theme will give us some straight fights. I'm also hoping we get a really badass Klingon villain and maybe some Romulans making an appearance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Hit Man posted:Can't get past how they can cast younger versions of every cast member portrayed ethnically accurate to date Not entirely. Sulu is Japanese, but he is played by a Korean (John Cho). DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:04
|
|